Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Road Junctions (Parked Cars)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to make it illegal for any vehicle to be parked within a prescribed distance of a road junction.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): This is a possibility being considered by the Department in a comprehensive review, with the police and others concerned, of the legal and practical aspects of obstruction. Meanwhile, local authorities are in many places introducing more restrictions on waiting and loading or unloading junctions.

Mr. Loveys: Although there is much to be said for giving local authorities responsibility for regulations on non-trunk roads, is not this an instance in which an overall policy would reduce confusion and, therefore, add to safety?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir; we consider that it would be desirable to have an overall policy, but we have to take into account the many and varied local circumstances. This is why a special study is now being made to see whether it is possible to have standardised regulations on the subject.

Motorways (Fog)

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Minister of Transport what measures he proposes to reduce accidents on motorways in fog conditions.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Tom Fraser): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) on 24th November.

Mr. Walker: The public are anxious that more should be done. For example, will my right hon. Friend respond to the urgent need to press ahead with the provision of emergency roadside telephones on the many miles of motorway which at present have no such provision, in particular the notorious Doncaster by-pass?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend will appreciate that to extend the provision of telephones as he suggests is not something that can be done with the speed with which I can take the other measures I announced a week ago. I am perfectly ready to look at all the suggestions which have been made for improving safety on the motorways in the longer term, but I think that I had better get on with the short-term measures which I have announced.

Mr. Cole: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the danger to road safety on motorways and other roads caused by fog and other weather conditions, he will have further consideration given to the device to be carried on vehicles to give warning of accidents, details of which have been sent to him, and about which representations have been made to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have asked the National Road Safety Advisory Council to advise on the use of direction indicators or other devices as emergency warning signals.

Mr. Cole: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that as his Ministry is responsible for initiating road safety devices, it is up to his Ministry to give encouragement, by constructive criticism and in other ways, to those who contribute to the cause of road safety?

Mr. Fraser: Indeed it is the Ministry's function to do that. That is why I appointed the Road Safety Advisory Council, and I should have thought that this was the organisation to which I should turn for advice in these matters.

Ipswich-Blytheburgh Road (Dual Carriageways)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to complete dual carriageways on the A.12 from Ipswich to Blytheburgh.

Mr. Swingler: We contemplate providing dual carriageways between Ipswich and Martlesham, but the timing depends on plans for the expansion of Ipswich, which have yet to be settled. Dual carriageways are not at present justified beyond Martlesham.

Sir H. Harrison: That is a very disappointing reply, in view of the bottlenecks at Wickham Market and Saxmund-ham further on. If this road is to carry more traffic, will his right hon. Friend bear that matter in mind when he comes to consider the possible closure of the East Suffolk railway?

Mr. Swingler: We shall take that in to account, but the hon. And gallant Gentleman will appreciate that we have to consider the road schemes here in relation to the possible expansion of Ipswich, on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has appointed consultants. Until we know the result of that, we cannot take a decision.

Tamworth-Thorpe Constantine Road

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Transport what sections of the A.453 between Tamworth and the parish of Thorpe Constantine are to be improved.

Mr. Swingler: Part of this section of A.453 will eventually be relieved by the proposed Tamworth by-pass. For the rest, it is our intention later on to provide dual carriageways. But we cannot say when these schemes can be included in the trunk road programme.

Mr. Snow: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in view of the recent appalling accident involving the deaths of four children and two adults, I looked at the road carefully, and there seems to be a case for some relatively cheap minor modifications to increase the safety factor?

Mr. Swingler: We all regret the terrible accident which occurred, but my

hon. Friend also knows that substantial improvements are being made to the A.38, and it is the intention that these will relieve the position on the A.453. But if small minor improvements could be made to overcome the problem, we should be prepared to consider them.

Mr. Snow: I am much obliged.

M.2 (London Extension)

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the route of the projected extension of the M.2 motorway into London.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The trunk road A.2 is being improved to near motorway standard. West of the Bexley-Greenwich boundary the Greater London Council is the responsible authority. It is investigating possible extensions of the route and will publish its proposals with a view to their being included in the Greater London Development Plan.

Signposts (London, S.W.1)

Mr. Berry: asked the Minister of Transport why the new large signposts in London, S.W.1, indicating the routes to the main roads from London to the North and West, omit any reference to the motorways.

Mr. Swingler: The Greater London Council is responsible for the new primary route signs in S.W.1.
We understand that the new signposts have been put up in the area of Victoria Station to assist the new traffic scheme there. They carry the same references as other signs in the surrounding area. References to the motorways would be of little help to motorists unless they were continuous along the whole route.

Mr. Berry: Would it not be helpful to motorists coming to London from both outside London and abroad if they could find their way to the motorways as is the case in foreign countries, particularly Italy?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but there are difficulties of expense and so on. In London this is a matter for the Greater London Council, which is the traffic authority, and we will draw its attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

M.1-M.6 (Link)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport what alteration there has been in the timing of the programme for providing the link between the M.1 and the M.6.

Mr. Swingler: None, Sir.

Mr. Dance: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the biggest snarl up in the whole of the road system is in this area? Is he aware that this is the main artery from the West to the Midlands and the South, including the ports which are so essential to our exports? Will he not speed up this vitally important programme?

Mr. Swingler: It is just because my right hon. Friend realises that that he has not altered the programme at all. That is why we are proceeding as rapidly as possible with the Midlands motorway link.

Trunk Roads, Dorset

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Minister of Transport what sum of money was spent on trunk roads in Dorset in the last financial year; and what sum of money is estimated to be spent in the current year.

Mr. Swingler: In the last financial year, some £43,800 were spent on major improvements and £106,900 on maintenance and minor improvements. Estimated expenditure for the current financial year is some £69,200 on major improvements and £120,800 on maintenance and minor improvements.

Mr. King: Is not the principal effect of those figures the fact that when tourist traffic is at its height there will be a complete snarl-up of traffic on the main Dorset roads? Is not the programme quite inadequate?

Mr. Swingler: The main point about the figures is that there has been a substantial increase in expenditure on major and minor improvements and maintenance. We are not saying that the programme is ideal, but Dorset has a rather small mileage of trunk roads for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. We hope to continue the progress which we are making.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of the importance of Dorset, as witnessed by the fact that two Miss Worlds in succession have been drawn from Dorset, are we not entitled to better communications with the rest of the country?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure what that has to do with trunk roads.

Barnstaple-Torrington Road

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Transport what plans he has for improving the Barnstaple to Torrington road, in view of increased road traffic consequent upon railway closures.

Mr. Swingler: Devon County Council, the highway authority for B.3232, the direct route between Barnstaple and Torrington, has a number of improvements in mind, which will be carried out as soon as funds are available. The additional bus services using A.386 and A.39 are likely to have only a marginal effect.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the hon. Gentleman specifically about the funds available? When increased traffic is placed on the roads consequent upon rail closures, are not special grants available? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very dangerous road and that even. with careful driving I have twice nearly caused a by-election in the last three months? Will he see whether this very narrow and dangerous road could not qualify for some special Ministry assistance to make it safer to take the additional traffic?

Mr. Swingler: Devon County Council is entitled to grants for improvements on this road. It is for the council to put its suggestions to us. There has not been any substantial change in the traffic situation on the road, but I recognise that there is a need for improvements and we shall very sympathetically consider any proposal put by the county council.

Maidstone-Rainham Road

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a census of vehicles using the Maidstone to Rainham road with a view to classifying that road and to making improvements to it, particularly near Dunn Street.

Mr. Swingler: This road is already classified. It would be for Kent County Council, as highway authority, to initiate proposals for improvement or reclassification.

Mr. Wells: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on this road there have already been a number of accidents to pedestrians? Because of the junction with the motorway and the fact that there is no footpath in the village, the school caretaker has already been hurt and school children and many other people in this small village are literally in fear of their lives every day. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this very carefully and seriously?

Mr. Swingler: Certainly. I want drivers to take more care on this road. However, the traffic flow on it is relatively small. A recent survey showed about 1,500 vehicles a day using it. It is for the Kent County Council, as highway authority, to make proposals. If it has any to make, we will consider them carefully.

Farnham Road, Slough

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will reconsider his refusal of the request of Slough Borough Council for a pedestrian crossing in Farnham Road, Slough.

Mr. Swingler: A central reservation is to be provided soon in Farnham Road between Hampshire Avenue and Gloucester Avenue. This will help by enabling pedestrians to cross the road in two stages. We will, however, review the need for a pedestrian crossing three months after the central reservation has been made.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole one mile length of this road contains no place on which it is safe to cross? Is he further aware that the traffic lights are at intersections and that even there, where people think it more safe to cross because of the lights, there is severe danger from vehicles turning right? Will he keep this matter constantly under review?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. We are attempting to solve the problem by having a central reservation. We shall review it again after that. If it does not work, further measures will be taken.

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange for the traffic signals at the junction of Farnham Road and Northborough Road, Slough, to have an all-red phase to enable children and elderly people to cross the road at this point without the risk of being knocked over by vehicles turning right.

Mr. Swingler: We understand the Slough Borough Council introduced an all-red phase in these signals on Monday, 15th November.

A.6 Road, Disley (Accidents)

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport in view of the high accident rate on the A.6 road through Disley, what steps he will take to mitigate the dangers of the traffic through this village.

Mr. Swingler: I have written to the hon. Member on this matter.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me when he sent the letter, because I have not received it?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: rose—— [Laughter.]

Sir A. V. Harvey: This is not a laughing matter. A child was killed on this road recently. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary take account of the fact that, because of the reduced rail services, the traffic on this road has increased enormously and the accident rate is going up? What does he intend doing about it? How are we to reduce the accident rate on this road, where a child was killed quite recently?

Mr. Swingler: It is a serious matter. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received my letter. It was put on the board for him this morning. It is quite a long letter. As he knows, I have an appointment to see him at 3.30 to discuss the problem. My letter contains several suggestions to try to alleviate the situation.

Vehicles (Mud Flaps)

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Minister of Transport if, in the interests of road safety, he will seek to make it compulsory for all road vehicles to be fitted with mud flaps.

Mr. Swingler: As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) was told on 24th November, an investigation by the Road Research Laboratory has shown that mud flaps, with improved mudguards, can reduce spray behind commercial vehicles, but are of little benefit on private cars, especially when travelling at speed.
There is therefore no reason to make the fitting of mud flaps generally compulsory but we are seeking the co-operation of the motor industry in making improvements in commercial vehicles.

Sir R. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again? Does not he realise that a great part of the traffic, particularly on motorways, consists of lorries, for which this would be appropriate? Does not he think that here we have a simple, effective and cheap contribution to road safety, much more useful than regulations about speed limits which cannot be enforced?

Mr. Swingler: We have asked the manufacturers to try to get the general fitting of mud flaps on commercial vehicles; but we depend on the advice of the Road Research Laboratory, which has done considerable research into the effect of mud flaps on cars. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see the film that it has made, showing that we have no case for making this compulsory for cars.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that my constituent, the hon. Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), is doing too well. Can he be attended to?

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I never felt better in my life.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste the time of the House on bogus points of order.

Waltham Abbey, Essex

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Transport what short-term and long-term plans he has for improving the flow of traffic through Waltham Abbey in Essex.

Mr. Swingler: Essex County Council, as the authority responsible for traffic management, is now considering a one-

way traffic system. An improvement of High Bridge Street now in progress should be finished by about the end of next year. My right hon. Friend has recently written to my hon. Friend about the long-term prospects for extending the D-Ring Road east of A.10, where the section due to be built in the next few years will end.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great need for bringing forward the date of the construction of the D-Ring Road to carry through traffic in this area, since the narrow streets of Waltham Abbey are unsuitable, even with a one-way system, to carry through traffic?

Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend knows the tremendous demand on limited funds. We would like to see the D-Ring Road programme carried out as soon as possible but it is impossible to say now when it will be done. In the meantime, at a cost of £130,000, work is in hand to remove bottlenecks in High Bridge Street.

York-Harrogate Road (Accidents)

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Transport how many serious accidents, including fatalities, have occurred on the A.59 road between York and Harrogate in the latest available 12-month period; and how this compares with the preceding 12-month period.

Mr. Swingler: In the 12 months up to 30th September, 1965, there were 39 serious accidents, including 6 fatal; in the preceding 12 months there were 50 serious accidents, including 4 fatal.

Mr. Alison: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he would agree that this 15 or 20 mile stretch of road is clearly very perilous? Can he assure us that these facts have been taken into account in his right hon. Friend's consideration of the closure of the York to Harrogate railway line?

Mr. Swingler: Yes. These facts are being taken into account and my right hon. Friend is considering a scheme for flyovers in this area in the next roll forward of the road programme.

Trunk Roads (Lavatory Facilities)

Sir Clive Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport (1) how many counties have now provided lavatory


facilities on trunk roads; and how many counties are planning new lavatory facilities in 1966;
(2) what estimate he has made of the approximate cost of providing a lavatory on a trunk road, and of its approximate running costs.

Mr. Swingler: These facilities have been provided in Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire and Somerset. The local authorities in seven other counties are now planning to provide them. The capital cost depends upon the size and type of lavatory provided, and the availability of services to the site. It could range from about £1,500 to £5,000 or more. Running costs would also vary according to the circumstances.

Sir Clive Bossom: Does the Minister not agree that the present number of conveniences is far from adequate? What has happened to the promises made in this House in February and in the Adjournment debate on 29th April? Is he aware that if the Government gave a grant now of 75 per cent. these conveniences could be ready by early summer of next year?

Mr. Swingler: This is the progress which has been made, according to the schemes put forward by the local authorities under the pilot scheme. We have not yet spent all the money; we hope that by next summer we will have spent the £50,000 that was promised in the pilot scheme. After that we shall review the future financing of the scheme, as we have promised.

Hazardous Conditions (Warning Systems)

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce automatic early-warning systems on motorways and' trunk roads to warn motorists of hazards ahead in conditions of bad visibility.

Mr. Tom Fraser: There is already a remote controlled warning system on 26 miles of M.5. As I said on 24th November, I am studying signalling systems to see what permanent arrangements we should adopt for the motorways.

Miss Quennell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that my Question is

not directed solely to motorways, which, after all, carry a relatively small proportion of the national traffic? Would he also be prepared to consider a review in the light of the needs of our trunk road system generally?

Mr. Fraser: I am bound to say that I had thought that it was generally appreciated that we had to deal with the motorways problem first. Certainly the great public concern which has been expressed has been about motorways. Even the hon. Lady's Question dealt with motorways and trunk roads. I think that we should go ahead with the experiment we are having on the motorways.

Sir M. Redmayne: Bearing in mind that particularly on the A.1 there are alternate stretches of motorway and trunk road, and therefore special dangers arise, will the Minister see whether these warning signs can be provided over the whole length of such roads?

Mr. Fraser: I appreciate the need to do a great many things, but I think even the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that to get warning signs at one mile intervals along all our motorways before Christmas is a mammoth task. If there is so much to be done to make our roads safer, it is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends did so little about it for so many years.

Roads (Deferred Schemes)

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give an assurance that the A.38 Blue Linhay Hill to East Caton Cross Road Scheme, the Drumbridge to Chudleigh Knighton Bridge Road Scheme, and the Ashburton By-pass Scheme will not be delayed for more than six months under the Road Expenditure Programme; and whether he will now give the new starting date of each of these schemes.

Mr. Swingler: Subject to land acquisition being completed in time the new starting dates will be six months after the originally planned dates and will therefore be April, June and May, 1966, respectively.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least giving us the assurance that they will be held up for only six months. Will he and his right


hon. Friend bear in mind that it could be a false economy if men and machines were idle as a result of this happening? Will he keep an eye on this matter?

Mr. Swingler: I have no evidence of any machinery or men being idle, and we shall proceed with this as rapidly as we can.

A.38 Road (Improvements)

Sir H. Studholme: asked the Minister of Transport if he will reconsider his decision to defer the agreed improvements to the A.38 in Devon, in particular on the dangerous stretch between Chaddlewood and Lyneham Inn.

Mr. Swingler: The schemes on A.38 which have been postponed do not fall in any of the exempted categories. None of the schemes so far deferred affect the section between Chaddlewood and Lyneham Inn.

Sir H. Studholme: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the last three years there have been no less than 134 accidents on this sector of the Chaddlewood Line, six of them fatal? Will he please do something at once, because improvements were due to be carried out there this year, and we cannot afford to wait until the Plympton by-pass is completed, perhaps in three years' time.

Mr. Swingler: If the highway authority can suggest any short-term measures, we shall consider them as rapidly as possible, but the only longterm solution to the problem is the construction of the Plympton by-pass, which is programmed for 1968.

South-West (Deferred Schemes)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Transport why such a high proportion of the delayed road schemes is in the South-West; and what account he has taken of this in approving rail closures in the same area.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Schemes, whether in the South-West or elsewhere, were deferred unless they fell into one of the exempted categories. None of the deferred schemes in the South-West had any relevance to a railway closure.

Mr. Digby: Will the Minister at least say that in future he will consider road and rail communications for the South-West together?

Mr. Fraser: I always do.

Accidents (Road Clearance)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the standard of equipment available for the rapid clearance of motorways and other major highways after serious road accidents have occurred; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have no evidence to suggest that there is any deficiency in the equipment normally used to clear accidents on these roads.

Mr. Kitson: Will the right hon. Gentleman have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that there is some standard equipment available to the police and the fire brigade when they are called to serious accidents on motorways?

Mr. Fraser: My information is that the police and fire brigades are either properly equipped themselves, or are satisfied that equipment is available at garages with which they can get in touch at very short notice.

Road Junction, London (Accidents)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the dangerous junction at Tabernacle Street and Leonard Street in London, where 22 accidents have happened in five years, and that despite representations no safety measures have been taken; and what steps by way of lights or warning obstacles on the minor road he will take to improve the junction.

Mr. Swingler: Responsibility for the junction now lies with the London Boroughs of Islington and Hackney as highway authorities and the Greater London Council as traffic authority. On the Department's advice steps were taken by the former Metropolitan Boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch to improve conditions here, resulting in the reduction of accidents from 14 in 1963 to 5 in the last 12 months. We understand that


further steps are now being taken by the highway authorities.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that someone who has an office at this junction has reported every accident that has occurred there during the last five years to the police and to the local authorities and urged that action be taken? Will he use that as a reason to chase up local authorities and the police to act much more quickly at this dangerous junction?

Mr. Swingler: The Borough of Islington has asked the G.L.C. to approve new traffic signs at this junction. We are prepared to discuss the matter with the G.L.C. and to do everything we can to assist.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Vehicles (Insecure Loads)

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the large number of prosecutions instituted in 1964, he is satisfied that the regulations applying to dangerously insecure loads carried on vehicles on the highways are sufficiently understood or adequate; and if he will take steps to publicise these regulations.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the regulations applying to dangerously insecure loads carried on vehicles on the highways are adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: The regulations are in general and simple terms and we have no reason to think they are not well known and understood by vehicle operators.

Miss Quennell: Does the Minister consider that nearly 1,000 prosecutions a month for insecure loads indicates that the regulations are widely known and well understood, not to mention the number of instances when prosecutions have not occurred?

Mr. Swingler: There is no reason to believe that the regulations are not well known. The fact is that they are not widely observed. There has been a growing number of enforcement actions,

and we want to increase the number. I hope that these Questions will give publicity to the matter.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent case in the North-East of a lorry carrying 14 tons of steel sheets secured by three half-inch ropes which were sliced off into a bus, the penalty imposed in this case being a fine of only £3 or £4? Are not more stringent penalties required to keep these offenders off the road altogether?

Mr. Swingler: Powers exist under the law to fine up to £50, according to the circumstances. My right hon. Friend and I have no control over the penalties involved, but we are very anxious that the regulations should be strictly enforced.

Highlands and North-East Scotland

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport what review of transport requirements he is undertaking in the Highlands and north-east of Scotland.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I keep these requirements under constant review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. In doing so, we have the benefit of the advice of the Highland Transport Board and of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Campbell: In view of the extensive and rapid development of winter sports and the many more people coming into the Highlands during the winter as a result, will the right hon. Gentleman review the position in the light of the changing conditions because of the difficulties of travelling in winter?

Mr. Fraser: I am not very sure what the hon. Gentleman asks me to review. Some of these matters which he wants me to take into account are no doubt the responsibility of the Secretary of State, but together we do our best to ensure that adequate provision is made for the tourists referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the frequency of the transport services is of great importance not only for the purpose of feeding the hungry people in the south of this island but also for the purpose of


assisting the development of trade, industry, commerce and employment in north-east Scotland?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

Municipal Transport Undertakings

Mr. Garrow: asked the Minister of Transport if he is satisfied with the present financial position of municipal transport undertakings; and what proposals he has to ease the situation.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I am aware of the present difficulties of bus undertakings, including municipal transport. We are already giving help by taxation relief. My general policy is to achieve a better balance between public and private transport in the towns.

Mr. Garrow: Will my right hon. Friend agree that most of the municipal transport undertakings in the country are experiencing severe financial difficulties and that these are increasing year by year? Will he agree that this can only result in either an increase in fares or an inferior service? Does he not agree that the position of transport undertakings must be looked at very closely because they are essential to the well-being of the nation?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir; the municipal passenger transport undertakings are meeting increasing difficulties, as are other companies which provide these services. These are matters which are at the present time receiving very close attention from the Government.

Mr. Ridsdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what concessionary fares are costing the Government in taxation relief?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that concessionary fares cost the Government anything at all in taxation relief.

Driving Licences

Mr. Hamling: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he will take to stop the issue of driving licences to drivers suffering from bad sight or severe physical disabilities which might impair their driving or make them liable to affect the safety of other road users.

Mr. Tom Fraser: I have no evidence that the measures already in force are inadequate. The Road Research Laboratory is studying the relationship between health and road accidents and the position will be reviewed when the study is complete.

Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend comment to the House on the recent correspondence that I have had with him on this subject?

Mr. Fraser: Not in answer to the Question. I really cannot add to what I have just said.

Mr. Hogg: In any review of the subject which the right hon. Gentleman may undertake, may I ask him to bear in mind the interests of the disabled drivers, who, by and large, are among the safest and most closely controlled class of drivers in the community?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

Defective Goods Vehicles

Mr. Bagier: asked the Minister of Transport how many goods transport vehicles have been examined under the spot check scheme; how many were found to be defective; how many were found to be dangerous and taken off the road immediately; and what percentages of these figures are in the public sector and the private sector, respectively.

Mr. Tom Fraser: In the 12 months ending 30th September, 1965, 139,428 vehicles were examined. 64,335 were found to be defective in some respect and of these 14,017 were the subject of prohibition notices with immediate effect. The records do not distinguish between vehicles owned by private firms and public bodies.

Mr. Bagier: Is not my right hon. Friend shocked by these figures? Will he not agree that they show that nearly 50 per cent. of vehicles examined are potential lethal weapons on the road? Will he take such steps as are within his power to ensure that at least the public sector toes the line, and state his intentions as Minister to ensure that these vehicles are quickly brought into line and either taken off the road or put into a fit condition?

Mr. Fraser: I have already informed the House that I intend to bring forward legislation at a very early date which will enable me better to deal with defective lorries. I shall provide for the annual testing of lorries, for which there is no provision at the moment, and for the plating of lorries, which will impose a load limit beyond which it will be an offence to overload a lorry. In this and other ways—by means of regulations dealing with braking efficiency and so on—I am doing all I can to deal with the manace of the lorries.

Mr. Webster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are adequate powers under the 1960 Act dealing with road traffic for the licensing authorities to give revocation and prohibition orders in these cases, and what steps is he taking to ensure that the licensing authorities use the powers which they already have?

Mr. Fraser: The licensing authorities are using the powers which they already have, but I was asked whether I might take more powers so that I might do more.

Mr. Bence: When considering legislation on this matter, will my right hon. Friend always remember that sometimes the owner of the vehicle is the unfortunate victim of bad service?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Rhodes: asked the Minister of Transport what action he proposes to take to keep defective goods vehicles off the roads, in view of the recent evidence of his inspectors' checks on such vehicles using roads in Northumberland and Durham.

Mr. Swingler: We are developing plans for the annual testing of the heavier classes of lorries. Meanwhile our examiners are continuing their checks. Action in relation to carriers' licences is the responsibility of the Licensing Authorities. In the Northern Traffic Area 76 vehicles were suspended from carriers' licences during the 12 months ending 30th September, 1965, following offences against safety regulations.

Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. Friend aware that when his inspectors recently checked heavy goods vehicles in Northumberland and Durham more than 40 per cent. were found to be defective? Can he confirm

statements in the local Press that when traffic commissioners revoke the licences of these cheeseparing companies the appeals tribunals give them back by return of post?

Mr. Swingler: I have no information about that, but I shall certainly investigate it, because we want to get better enforcement. Perhaps I might tell my hon. Friend that in this area proceedings have been taken in 461 cases, and there have been 457 convictions.

Diesel-Engined Vehicles (Fumes)

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport what reports he has received about the successful use of after-burners for the elimination of diesel fumes from heavy road vehicles; and whether he will inquire into the action taken by the Californian State Legislature, with a view to similar action in this country.

Mr. Swingler: We are advised that proper maintenance and adjustment is a better means of preventing smoke from diesel engines than the use of afterburners.
We have no information at present about legislation in respect of afterburners on diesel engines in California, but we are making inquiries.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. is he aware that the legislation proposed in California is to cover not only diesel but petrol fumes from ordinary motor cars? Is he aware that a number of European countries are getting effective results with diesel fumes by imposing suitable penalties on the owners of vehicles which are not properly maintained?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. We are aware of the methods being used on petrol engines in California, but we have not yet received information about the legislation. We are preparing a British Standard for diesel engines and in the testing scheme for goods vehicles checks on smoke from diesel fumes will be included.

Drivers (Restricted Areas)

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give publicity to the fact that a driver in the outside lane in a 40 miles per hour restricted area


who is driving at 40 miles per hour has no legal obligation to move out of that lane to enable another driver to overtake him.

Mr. Swingler: In practice motorists should observe the Highway Code and keep to the left except when overtaking and turning to the right. It is relevant that fire-engines, ambulances and police cars are not, in general, subject to speed limits. The legal position is broadly as stated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Dance: I am seeking information and I am grateful for that answer. When going down to London Airport, for example, on a dual carriageway, when there is a car behind flashing and tooting, although one is going at the correct speed limit for that road, should one draw over to the left and allow the following car to pass? If so, is not one then conniving at the breaking of the law?

Mr. Swingler: There is no legal obligation, but we hope that all drivers will drive in a manner which will avoid accidents and dangers on the road.

Sir M. Redmayne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a major problem is involved here and that it will become even more acute with the proposed 70 m.p.h. limit and may well require special attention by the Minister if there is not to be the most extraordinary congestion on three-lane roads?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. But speed limits have been in operation in this country for a very long time and it is for drivers not only to observe the law of the land, but to exercise common sense in their driving.

Speed Limits

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Minister of Transport (1) what plans he has for a review of highway speed limits; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what steps he intends to take to improve observance by drivers of highway speed limits.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Speed limits are under constant review to ensure as far as possible that they are realistic. Possible future developments include the introduction of differential speed limits, which I now have under consideration. The results of the forthcoming trial of a 70 m.p.h. general

limit will be reviewed as fully as possible before the experiment ends, and they will be taken into account when I decide, next Easter, on the measures to be adopted later in the year.
The importance of observing speed limits continues to be stressed in the Highway Code and in road safety publicity issued by the Ministry and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Enforcement is of course a matter for the police, and I am sure that, within the limits of their present resources this essential task receives every possible attention.

Sir R. Nugent: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive reply. As the speed limit is probably the most effective road safety measure ever introduced, provided that its imposition is correctly applied, and as it loses its effect the more speed limits are imposed and the less they are enforced, will the right hon. Gentleman consider an urgent review of the 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. limits with a view to drastically reducing their number together with more effective enforcement by more mobile police? Is not the reduction of the number of pedestrian crossings a very good prototype in this respect? Will the right hon. Gentleman please consider this suggestion?

Mr. Fraser: I must not mislead the House. I have no intention of greatly reducing the number of 30 m.p.h. and 40 m.p.h. speed limits. I would have thought that most hon. Members would recognise that that would make no contribution to road safety.

Mr. Orme: Has my right hon. Friend anything further to say on the question of minimum speed limits on motorways?

Mr. Fraser: I cannot say anything at this stage except that I will consider this along with other suggestions when I review the results of the general 70 m.p.h. limit which I announced last week.

Sir M. Redmayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the fewer the speed limits the more easily they can be enforced? There is no point in adhering to a policy that speed limits have a virtue in themselves unless they are strictly relevant to the conditions to which they apply. Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear the position about the 70 m.p.h. limit? It seems to me, from my contacts with the Press, that, at the Press


conference last week, he gave the impression that it was his opinion that the limit was permanent. Will he make it clear now that it is only a four months' experiment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) should frame his supplementary questions more concisely.

Mr. Fraser: The 70 m.p.h. speed limit is an experiment. I made this clear at my Press conference. I also said that I would review the whole situation before the end of that period. I think that the police do all they can to enforce the existing speed limits. It would be monstrous a t this time if we were greatly to reduce the mileage of roads subject to the 30 and 40 m.p.h. limits.

Mr. Mapp: Since my right hon. Friend has legislation in mind, will he consult the Home Secretary with a view to having a separate traffic police force and separate courts for dealing with motoring offences? Is my right hon. Friend aware that continual legislation without real enforcement is a farce and that it is time we had real enforcement and deterrence in the courts?

Mr. Fraser: I did not make my announcement last week without consulting my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and having a conference with a great many of the chief constables concerned. Enforcement is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, so my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) should address that supplementary question to him.

Vehicle Lighting Regulations

Mr. Gurden: asked the Minister of Transport when new vehicle lighting regulations will be made.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend has set up a working party with representatives of manufacturers, users, road safety organisations and the police to consider current problems of vehicle lighting and to review the regulations. The working party will make recommendations on specific aspects of lighting as soon as it is able to reach conclusions.

Mr. Gurden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Ministry is years behind other countries in making regulations and that it is quite legal for a vehicle to drive at 70 m.p.h. without having more than parking lights on? Is it not time that something was done about it?

Mr. Swingler: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have been having discussions with the manufacturers and others about lighting, however. New regulations regarding certain vehicles and a heavy goods testing scheme will be introduced shortly and we hope to announce new decisions on the subject.

Learner-Drivers (Tests)

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Transport what time elapses before a learner-driver, who has failed one test, may take another; and what at present is the average actual lapse in such cases in the West Riding of Yorkshire.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The prescribed minimum period is one month. At present in the West Riding the average actual waiting period is about 15 weeks.

Mr. Alison: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider giving priority for the second test to those who have been professionally taught to drive, since it is clearly in the public interest that professional instruction should be undertaken by learners?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that this would be fair to those who had already been given a date. If someone failed a test and was then given a place in the queue ahead of a person already in the queue that would be unfair, and I do not think it can be done.

Transport of Farm Workers (Safety Standards)

Mr. Doig: asked the Minister of Transport if he will introduce legislation to ensure that the safety standard for vehicles used for carrying squads of workers to farms are equal to those for public service vehicles.

Mr. Swingler: All vehicles are subject to the Construction and Use Regulations, which prohibit the carriage of passengers in a dangerous manner. We have no


evidence to suggest that additional requirements are needed for vehicles used to carry farm workers, but if my hon. Friend has any we will certainly consider it.

Mr. Doig: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently in Dundee four people died when they were being transported on a lorry for this type of work? Is he aware that this is a common practice in our part of the country and will he now look to see if it is illegal and if steps can be taken to see that the law is enforced?

Mr. Swingler: Yes, Sir. I will investigate it.

Articulated Trailers (Lighting)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to make red lights obligatory on the sides of articulated trailers 30 ft. in length and over.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1964 already require such trailers to be fitted with side marker lamps showing white light to the front and red light to the rear.

Mr. Murray: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to consider the enforcement of these Regulations? This matter was brought to my attention by the widow of a constituent killed when his vehicle collided with the side of a lorry. Is the Minister aware that lorries coming on to main roads constitute a danger when they are inadequately lit?

Mr. Fraser: I will certainly take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Webster: Is the Minister aware that the vast number of Questions on the Order Paper to him regarding road safety shows the great anxiety felt by the whole House on this subject? Is he aware that we hope that the Bill, when it is presented, will be thoroughly comprehensive? Will he tell us when it will be presented?

Mr. Fraser: I hope to introduce the Bill at an early date. It will not be a thoroughly comprehensive Bill.

Motor Insurers' Bureau Consultations

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Transport what progress has now been made in the discussions between his Depart-

ment and the Motor Insurers' Bureau relating to the responsibility for damages suffered by those who have claims against hit-and-run drivers; whether the Bureau is now prepared to refer such applications to an independent tribunal or make their decisions subject to an appeal in the courts; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Howe: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a statement on the progress of negotiations that have been proceeding with a view to the revision and improvement of the current agreement with the Motor Insurers' Bureau.

Mr. Swingler: Our consultations with the Motor Insurers' Bureau are progressing favourably. The Bureau has been very co-operative in making detailed constructive suggestions in response to those which we put to them, and these are being examined. They need very careful consideration, and although we cannot at this stage forecast when negotiations will be concluded, there will be no avoidable delay.

Mr. Abse: Will the Parliamentary Secretary note that he has not given any indication in his reply as to whether the negotiations are leading to the possibility of an independent tribunal for appellant jurisdiction? In view of the fact that there is widespread dissatisfaction at the operation of the existing system, will he impress upon the Motor Insurers' Bureau that if it believes that all is fair on its part, there can be nothing wrong in it submitting to people outside the insurance world for decisions?

Mr. Swingler: The negotiations are principally about establishing a method of appeal. There are a number of other questions and as soon as we can report upon them we will do so.

Mr. Howe: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is now some nine months since his right hon. Friend told me that this problem was being looked at with the Motor Insurers' Bureau? Is he further aware that in half a dozen States of Australia and in New Zealand, it has been quite simply solved by making provision for the Motor Insurers' Bureau, or its equivalent, to be declared a nominal defendant in proceedings in court, so that the injured party can have the satisfaction


of an independent determination of his claim to compensation?

Mr. Swingler: That is one of the proposals which we are considering. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is more than one side to the negotiations, which we are pursuing as rapidly as we can.

Exceptional Loads (Movement)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to restrict the transport by road of exceptional loads to the hours between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Mr. Swingler: The police, who are best able to take account of all the relevant local conditions, control the timing of the movements of such loads. We do not feel justified in seeking to alter these arrangements.

Mr. Boardman: Is my hon. Friend aware that these exceptional loads are a daily occurrence on the roads to the North-West, making their way from various works to the ports of Liverpool and Manchester? Is he further aware that the maximum speed of many of these vehicles is 15 m.p.h., and that as a consequence hundreds of vehicles are limited to the same speed? Is it not time that somebody did something about this?

Mr. Swingler: This matter is left to the discretion of chief constables, and if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I suggest that he takes it up with the chief constable concerned. If there is anything further that we can do, we will certainly assist, but it is a matter that depends a lot on local circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Port of London Authority

Mr. Shore: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied with the present composition of the Port of London Authority; and what proposals he has received for its reform from the National Ports Council or from other bodies.

Mr. Tom Fraser: The Authority is composed. of 29 members, representative of all the main interests in the port. I

have not as yet received any proposals for reform of the constitution of the port, but the National Ports Council and the Authority are at present discussing the matter.

Mr. Shore: In view of that reply, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the Port of London Authority the view of the Rochdale Committee that the majority of members of a port authority should not be drawn from people who are regular payers of rates and dues, which is the case in the Port of London Authority today?

Mr. Fraser: The Chairman of the Rochdale Committee was Lord Rochdale, who is also Chairman of the National Ports Council, and he is having consultations with the Port of London Authority at the present time.

Mr. Mikardo: Would my right hon. Friend undertake that in any wider review which takes place of the working of the London Docks not only the composition but also the terms of reference, functions and powers of the Port of London Authority will be subject to examination?

Mr. Fraser: My hon. Friend has directed his Question to the Port of London Authority, but he has raised a question which the Government must look at in a wider context, and that we are doing.

INVASION OF PRIVACY (MICRO-TRANSMITTERS)

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he is aware of public concern at the inadequacy of the law to protect the rights of privacy of individuals; whether he is aware that technical devices now on sale, such as micro-bug transmitters, constitute an invasion of the privacy of the citizen; and whether, in view of present ambiguities concerning remedies for infringement of privacy, he will cause the Law Commissioners to review the existing law.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): I am aware that the devices to which the hon. Member refers do facilitate the invasion of other people's privacy and that there is anxiety about their use. I have discussed the matter


with the Postmaster-General who is considering what steps could most suitably be taken to strengthen the existing safeguards.
Any proposal to create a general statutory right to privacy would raise wide and controversial issues, including the liberty of the Press. This factor might make it a difficult subject for the Law Commission to examine. The Commission already has a very full programme.

Mr. Abse: Is the Minister aware that in the United States, where the right of privacy law has been developed by case law and statute, it has become possible to weaken and make more elastic the law of libel as is desired, quite rightly, by the Press here? Is he aware that this is precisely because the law regarding privacy has been more developed there? Is he also aware that it is surely unsatisfactory that this right of privacy should be resolved as a technical matter by the Postmaster-General? This touches upon fundamental rights, and when devices are in existence which can lead to blackmail as well as to eavesdropping, would he not agree that there is a real necessity to get at the fundamentals of the law?

Sir Eric Fletcher: My hon. Friend bas referred to two different matters. The subject of the so-called micro-bugs is receiving the close attention of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who will be answering Questions about that shortly. With regard to the wider question, I am aware that in certain States of the United States a law of privacy has been evolved by the empirical method of judicial decision. I am also aware of the close relation between the right of privacy and the law of libel and, as my hon. Friend knows, this matter was considered by the Porter Commission on the law of defamation which reported a few years ago. It pointed out great difficulties in formulating and extending the definition of libel in a way which, while effective to restrain any improper invasion of privacy, would, at the same time, not interfere with the due reporting of actions of public interest.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is totally illegal to operate a radio transmitter, even a micro-powered one, without a licence from the Postmaster-General? Can he make it

clear to anyone manufacturing or marketing this equipment, that people who buy it would be operating outside the law unless they obtained a licence, and that prosecutions would immediately follow?

Sir Eric Fletcher: I think it is important that it should be generally known that it is an offence for anyone to use one of the devices without a licence from the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Abse: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Liner Trains

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the proposed service of liner trains between Glasgow and London.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Freightliners have been running experimentally between Glasgow and London for some weeks. Since 15th November, a limited amount of traffic has been carried on behalf of customers. It is the Railways Board's intention in due course to introduce a full commercial service, and I should like to take this opportunity of reaffirming the Government's full support for the Board's policy of opening the terminals of these services to all categories of road haulage vehicles.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister doing all he can to bring this service into full operation, as a faster and more reliable freight service would make a great difference to trade and industry in Scotland, especially in exports?

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I am.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport what is the state of his discussions with the unions regarding the liner train projects.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Earlier this year I explained to representatives o0066 the rail-waymen's unions the importance the Government attach to the success of liner trains as part of the railway modernisation programme. The operation of liner trains was also among the matters I discussed recently with representatives of the road transport unions.

Mr. Webster: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress as hard as he can on the unions that it is essential that there should be free access by all types of hauliers to these liner trains if the business is to be brought to the railway system and it is to be made viable?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think that anyone anywhere is in any doubt about the Government's policy in this matter.

Mr. Popplewell: In view of the success of this experiment of running liner trains with the Railways Board's own collection and delivery staff, will my right hon. Friend be more insistent with the Board to allow it to continue the policy of quoting through rates so that it can use its own road services for collection?

Mr. Fraser: The Railways Board quotes through rates, but from its market research it is satisfied that 70 per cent. of the traffic which it will carry on liner trains is at present carried by professional road hauliers.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Transport what expenditure he has sanctioned at liner train depôts.

Mr. Tom Fraser: Of the £6 million so far authorised for the first 15 routes of the liner train project, £2½ million is for the adaptation and equipment of terminals.

Mr. Webster: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the traffic on liner trains is ballast, and for how long this high percentage of ballast is going to be taken on these trains? Will he forcefully make it known to the unions that unless there is free access for private hauliers they will be a loss and the money spent on them will be wasted?

Mr. Fraser: The object of carrying ballast on the liner trains is to prove the trains and not just to make up weight in place of merchandise which they would otherwise be carrying. The Railways Board is having discussions with the consignors of traffic and it is for the Board to agree with its customers when the liner trains should be in full operation.

Long-distance Trains (Telecommunications)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Transport if, with a view to dealing

with emergencies, he will give a general direction to British Railways to provide telecommunications on long-distance trains; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Swingler: No, Sir. It is for the British Railways Board to decide whether to provide facilities of this kind.

Mr. Dempsey: In view of the assistance that would be afforded in the event of railway accidents and having regard to the recent train robbery, would it not be a good idea for the Minister to give such a direction, especially in the case of a train carrying very valuable loot? Would it not be worth while experimenting, as it could not be any dearer than the cost of maintaining soldiers, policemen and prison officers to guard train robbers?

Mr. Swingler: My hon. Friend will appreciate that a provision of this kind generally would be very costly. It is for the British Railways Board, which is responsible for the operation of the railways, to decide whether this is necessary. They take special measures to provide telephonic communication for drivers in certain circumstances. I have no doubt that the British Railways Board will take note of my hon. Friend's Question.

Withdrawn Services

Mr. Hendry: asked the Minister of Transport how many railway stations and what length of line were closed to passenger traffic in the past 12 months.

Mr. Tom Fraser: In the period 1st December, 1964, to 30th November, 1965, passenger services were withdrawn from 890 miles of track and 412 stations.

Mr. Hendry: On reflection, is not the Minister ashamed of the appalling devastation revealed by those figures which in the north of Scotland have come to be known as "Fraser's axe" and which are in direct contrast to the policy of his predecessor, who took some account of social considerations? Before closing any more lines, will the right hon. Gentleman accept my invitation to come to the north of Scotland and to see the dreadful road conditions there at this time of the year?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that for the closure of most of the miles of track and stations


from which services have been withdrawn in the past 12 months his right hon. Friend my predecessor was responsible. If this has been a shameful business, it has been a shameful business perpetrated by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend.

Mr. Snow: I accept my right hon. Friend's response when he says that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are ultimately responsible for a vicious piece of Conservative legislation. However, how can he possibly explain the signs now appearing on cars and saying, "Come back Marples; all is forgiven"?

Mr. Fraser: I am not responsible for justifying the signs or stickers put on motor cars.

Disused Railway Workshops (Machinery)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the British Railways Board to take steps to dispose of all usable machinery in disused railway workshops in order to secure the maximum disposal price for it, and to ensure that before sale it is adequately protected against vandalism.

Mr. Tom Fraser: No, Sir. This is a matter within the managerial responsibilities of the British Railways Board.

Mrs. Short: Would my right hon. Friend agree to undertake an investigation into what is happening in the railway workshop in my constituency, which was unfortunately closed down by his predecessor? Is he aware that the railwaymen in my constituency are both angry and depressed by what happened recently on previous railway property?

Mr. Fraser: I have been in touch with the Railways Board since my hon. Friend put this Question down. I understand that there was a recent incident in which railway transport police arrested three men who were in the process of removing some copper wire, of a value estimated at £100. Prosecutions followed but the men were acquitted. The Board assures me that it takes all reasonable precautions but I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said will reach the ears of the Chairman.

Waverley-Hawick-Carlisle Line

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Transport what is the latest position regarding the future of the Waverley-Hawick-Carlisle railway line.

Mr. Swingler: My right hon. Friend is considering, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, whether to agree to the publication by the Railways Board of a proposal to withdraw passenger services from this line.

Mr. Steel: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many other main railway lines in this country have still to have their futures decided three years after the publication of the Beeching Report? I think that this line must be one of the last. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of reports that the Railways Board has turned down possible lucrative contracts in relation to this line in anticipation of closure?

Mr. Swingler: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to cover the first part of his supplementary question, either my right hon. Friend or I will answer it. The second part of his supplementary question is not relevant to this issue, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is considering the proposal about this service to decide whether or not it should go forward at all.

Railway Land (Use)

Mr. Buxton: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give a general direction in the public interest to the British Railways Board that whenever possible they should respect the wishes of local authorities in matters of planning control and work in co-ordination with them on matters of railway land usage, even though they possess exemption from planning control under Schedule 1, Class XVII, of the Town and Country General Development Order, 1963.

Mr. Tom Fraser: No, Sir. There are standing arrangements under which the British Railways Board consults the local planning authorities informally before embarking on development permitted by the Order. I understand that these arrangements work satisfactorily and that the Board does what it can to meet the wishes of local authorities.

Mr. Buxton: Is the right hon. Gentle. man aware that there are many offensive and unsuitably sited industries which exist under the umbrella of railway planning exempt ions? In this connection the Minister knows of the case in Leyton about which I wrote to him. Will he take some action on this?

Mr. Fraser: I understand that in that case the council was satisfied ultimately with the discussions it had with the Railways Board.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary questions are getting longer. If they were shorter we should have more supplementary questions. The Prime Minister.

Sir M. Redmayne: On a point of order. I apologise to the Prime Minister—but although Ministers and the Opposition have made intensive efforts to get through Questions at a wild gallop this afternoon we have still got through only two-thirds of the transport Questions. Will the Leader of the House note that in the new roster after the Christmas Recess more time should be given to Questions on transport?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

ZAMBIA (BRITISH FORCES) and RHODESIA (ECONOMIC MEASURES)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement. I am sorry that, for reasons the House will recognise, I was not able to make it yesterday. I am sorry, also, that this statement is not as definitive or final as I had hoped it would be.
As the House knows, I have been in touch with the President of Zambia over the past few days both directly by correspondence and through the intermediary of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald and the British High Commissioner in Lusaka, about the defence of Zambia in the light of current developments in Central and East Africa. The House will also be aware that, on the break-up of the Federation, the bulk of the Federation Air Force went to Southern Rhodesia, and in consequence Zambia feels herself at present without effective means of air defence.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore expressed their willingness, to meet President Kaunda's request, to fly in to Zambia a squadron of Javelin aircraft, complete with radar environment, to be stationed at Ndola, the ground environment to be stationed at Lusaka and a detachment of the R.A.F. regiment to be stationed at both airports, and probably at Livingstone as well, in order to ensure the protection of the aircraft and installations.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who flew to Lusaka last night, will, together with the military adviser who went with him, be discussing a further request for a battalion of ground troops.
In addition, the House should know that, as a precautionary measure, H.M.S. "Eagle" is cruising off the coast of Tanzania.
Any British units sent to Zambia would have to be under unequivocal British command, though naturally in consultation with the Zambia Government.
I wish to make clear to the House that these forces sent to Zambia will go there purely for defensive purposes.
There is one further matter on which I should report to the House, and that concerns power supplies from Kariba. As the House knows, power from Kariba supplies both Rhodesia and Zambia, but the power station is on the Rhodesian side of the Kariba Darn. It is in the British interests as well as the Zambian interest that power supplies to the Copper Belt should continue. I think it, therefore, only right that I should tell the House that I have given President Kaunda an assurance that we shall not stand idly by if Rhodesia cuts off power supplies to the Copper Belt.
Now, Sir, I turn to economic measures.
I undertook to keep the House informed of any further economic measures the Government decided to introduce.
In addition to the embargoes on tobacco and sugar, which are already in force and which represent 70 per cent. of Rhodesia's exports to Britain, we have now placed embargoes on the following Rhodesian exports: asbestos, copper and copper products, iron and steel ores and concentrates of antimony, chromium, lithium and tantalum, maize, meat and


edible meat products, and a range of other foodstuffs.
The embargoed items now account for over 95 per cent. of Rhodesia's exports to us, so that we, who were once Rhodesia's best market, have virtually ceased to buy from her. We are in close touch with other countries which buy significant quantities of these or other commodities from Rhodesia. The object of these consultations is to deny Rhodesia, as far as possible, the export outlets on which the finances of the illegal régime depend.
We are also reviewing certain items in our export trade to Rhodesia where these are relevant to our objectives of securing a speedy return to constitutional rule in Rhodesia, and are in touch with other countries about them.
Further, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is announcing from the Treasury this afternoon the details of further financial measures. I will not weary the House with the details, some of which are highly technical, but I ought perhaps to inform the House, in general terms, that a stop is being placed on practically all current payments by United Kingdom residents to residents of Rhodesia, except for those arising out of the very limited trade in goods still permitted, and also on remittances. Contractual obligations will not be repudiated, but they cannot be fulfilled in present circumstances. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, money due to residents of Rhodesia will be held back for the time being and will be released as soon as constitutional Government is restored in Rhodesia.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will recognise that the statement he has just made is one of considerable gravity. Will he accept that we believe it is right for the British Government to accede to the request from President Kaunda, the head of another country of the Commonwealth, for British defence forces to go to that country? At the same time, can he be more explicit about their purpose there? Has he had any indication that Zambia is under danger of attack from Rhodesia? Hon. Members on this side of the House have none. Or is it that it is regarded as undesirable that other forces should themselves go into Zambia?

Does he recognise that from this side we believe it is right that these forces should go there, providing—as he said—that they remain under British control, provided also that other forces do not go into Zambia, and provided that the British forces are not expected to trespass either on the ground or air space of Rhodesia itself? If I understand his statement aright, that is correct. He said that they will go there purely for defensive purposes.
In this connection, I must ask him to clarify the last sentence of the next paragraph, in which he said "we shall not stand idly by if Rhodesia cuts off power supplies to the Copper Belt." This is a statement of such importance that the Prime Minister must clarify this to the House. At first reading it is in contradiction to his own statement that the forces are there for defensive purposes, because it can only imply that our forces will invade Southern Rhodesia to defend the power supply.
Thirdly, I should like to ask him about the further economic measures which are now being taken. He told the House previously that the measures taken by the Government would be effective and that the Government would enter into other measures only if all other countries were doing the same thing. Is this in fact the position? We should like to give further consideration to the measures which he has now announced.

The Prime Minister: I fully understand that the right hon. Gentleman will need time to give further consideration to the question of these economic measures. They are in the spirit of what I said last week, when I said that it is not only more effective but, in the short and the long run, better that the measures should be quick and sharp rather than a long drawn out continuing agony on Rhodesia. I well understand that there are different views, and it is only fair that the right hon. Gentleman should have far more time than he has had to study these things.
I thank him for the expression of support he gave to the proposition that we should accede to the request for air cover in Zambia. I only regret that I am not in a position to be clearer about the discussions with President Kaunda. I have to tell the House that


the communications are in a shocking state at the moment, owing to atmospheric conditions which are holding up radio telegrams as well as ordinary telephone discussions. Therefore, I am not in a position to record the agreement that I hope it will be possible for Mr. MacDonald—and, I hope, my right hon. Friend—to get.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the question of a possible attack from Rhodesia. We have no information of an impending attack from Rhodesia, but President Kaunda has no air cover in any circumstances, and he feels very aggrieved about the fact that nothing was done to build up his forces after the discriminatory way in which the Federation's forces were divided up. It is a fact that if we are to maintain the position that we have asserted, that Rhodesia is our responsibility, we should do everything in our power to prevent the stationing of other air forces in Zambia, wherever they may come from, as a means of providing air cover for President Kaunda.
There is still a difficulty about the ground forces, as will have been made clear from what I have said. I will not make any bones about it; the Zambian Government are anxious that we put in forces there with the idea of taking out the Kariba generating station, which is on Rhodesian territory. This we feel is wrong, and have made this clear. There is still a lot of argument about ground forces. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with a vary senior military officer from the Ministry of Defence, has gone out to discuss.
I agree with him that the phrase about not standing idly by is a very important and grave one. Rhodesian copper is absolutely vital to our own industrial production, as well as to the economy of Zambia, and there have been threats from time to time—I have myself heard them—from the Smith regime, that at the end of the day they could always pull the switch and stop Zambia getting electric power. I believe that it is right that there should be enough of a deterrent in the minds of the Smith régime that if he interferes with Zambia's power supplies there might be some other power supply interfered with. I do not think it is appropriate here to say the means which might be used, but

while we are putting forces in—if we can reach full agreement with President Kaunda—on a defensive basis, it must be clear that we have the power to provide a deterrent to a cutting-off of the electric supply and we must be prepared to use that power.

Mr. Grimond: In relation to the right hon. Gentleman's assurance about Kariba, will he also consider the situation of the railway which is also vital to Zambia and, therefore, indirectly to this country? On his phrase about "contractual obligations", I understand that these are not being repudiated but cannot be fulfilled. Does this apply to all the contractual obligations, whenever entered into—even before U.D.I.—and does it also mean that we shall eventually fulfil them, or will fulfil only those to those people who did not support the illegal régime?

The Prime Minister: The railway is very important to Zambia, but what we have said relates to the cutting off of power. We shall also be watching very carefully the supply of coal from the Wanki colliery in case there is any attempt to use that as a means of destroying the economy of Zambia. We cannot make any general statement about the railway. Steps are being taken to provide transport facilities not crossing Rhodesia, and we are co-operating in helping to get certain roads and other transport facilities put in a state of better readiness so that, if necessary, Rhodesian transport does not have to be used. With regard to the contractual position, the right hon. Gentleman should await the very detailed statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be issuing later in the day. No doubt there will be questions on it. But the position, as I say, is that there will be no repudiation. There just will not be transfer for the present until constitutional government is restored.

Mr. Ennals: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is in this country a tremendous respect for the courage and statesmanship of President Kaunda in the difficulties with which Zambia is faced? Is he aware that the decision which he has announced today will make a significant contribution to the maintenance of the unity of the Commonwealth at this very vital time?

The Prime Minister: I certainly hope so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is very great respect for President Kaunda and, I think, a very great sympathy for him in his predicament. He is subject to the most tremendous pressures at present, and I think this may be responsible for some of the difficulties which we face in our discussions with him. Of course, it has been his hope all along—his earnest hope, which he has expressed publicly—that we would go ino Zambia, alone, with no other countries and then make a military attack on the situation in Rhodesia. We have said, of course, that this is contrary to our policy, and there is, I know, a lot of disappointment in his mind that we propose only a purely defensive operation. This, particularly with his emphasis on his desire—which we think is unrealistic—that we should take out the generating station and capture it and safeguard it, is what is causing the difficulties in our present discussions with him.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I fully share the Prime Minister's respect for President Kaunda, but are not his difficulties internal? Is it not the case that the Smith régime has no conceivable interest in attacking Zambia? Can the Prime Minister assure us that everything possible will be done to see that arms smuggling across the Zambesi is brought to a stop, in co-operation with the Zambian authorities, and that broadcast incitement to racial conflict from across the Zambesi also ceases?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to speculate on whether Mr. Smith will or is likely to undertake an act of aggression. I have only said that there is no evidence that he intends to do so at the moment. We had many reasons to doubt whether he was going to commit an illegal act, which he has now done. It is only right that all contingency planning should be made for any action of that kind. With regard to the question of broadcasting incitements to racialism, I heard an awful lot of that when I was in Salisbury.

Mr. Paget: Has my right hon. Friend asked Mr. Smith whether he would have any objection to being lent additional guards for the Kariba power house? One would have thought that it is in Mr. Smith's interests that these guards should

be provided, since the power house is valuable property of Rhodesia and is certainly in no danger from Mr. Smith.

The Prime Minister: I made it plain that any request from the Governor—we have no dealings with Mr. Smith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—whether inspired by Mr. Smith or by any other eminent private person in Rhodesia, would be seriously entertained by us, whether it was for troops for general law and order or for guarding any vital position such as the Kariba Dam. I think that the spirit of Mr. Smith's statement yesterday—in which he made a rather offensive remark about a swimming pool for a start—and then his attitude to any British troops south of the Zambesi is probably the best answer which we can get in present circumstances to my hon. and learned Friend's question.

Dr. Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he said about H.M.S. "Eagle" cruising off the coast of Tanzania? Is she intended to supply combat aircraft, or has she commandoes embarked? Has he secured over-flying facilities from the Tanzania Government?

The Prime Minister: Aircraft only; that is the purpose of H.M.S. "Eagle's" pre-positioning. She has been there for a few days. As the House will realise, the position is that it would be impossible for the Javelins to operate without a radar environment, and it takes time to erect the necessary radar cover at Lusaka. There was always the danger and possibility, although a remote one, of a preemptive strike, and it was therefore considered necessary for H.M.S. "Eagle" to be in those waters, because it would be possible for her Sea Vixens to provide temporary protection until we had the full radar and Javelin cover.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Does the Prime Minister realise that many of those who most desire to avoid the use of force believe that an oil sanction is the most effective means of so doing? Can he tell us what the United Nations Committee has been doing during the 12 days since the decision to impose an oil sanction was taken? Will he press on them that every day lost in making the sanction effective will reduce the possibility of rapid success?

The Prime Minister: I have expressed the view, which I hold very strongly, that an oil sanction, to be effective—without going into the merits of the proposal one way or another—must be virtually universal. The oil trade contains a lot of privateers who might easily supply oil. There are other considerations, not least the effect on Zambia, and there is the problem of South Africa and so on. Therefore, if an oil sanction is to be introduced—we are not contemplating one immediately—we should have to be satisfied that it was effective and internationally co-ordinated. So far as the United Nations are concerned, since there was nothing in the resolution calling for the Secretary-General, or a committee, to work on this, the United Nations are not taking the initiative in this matter.

Mr. Wall: While I appreciate the argument for giving Zambia air cover, may I ask the Prime Minister to clarify what he has in mind about the task of the British battalion if it is sent there? Will it be concerned with internal security only? Does he agree that any crossing of the frontier would be an act of war?

The Prime Minister: I am not at all sure what the hon. Member means by his last statement. For British troops to enter British territory is not an act of war. It is not for legal reasons of that kind that I have said that we are against using military force for getting a constitutional settlement. I am sure that I am right in saying that. But it is not a question of transgressing international frontiers. If the ground forces are to go there—that is, in addition to the R.A.F. Regiment defending the aircraft—there might be additional troops required for defending the aircraft and the airfields. My right hon. Friend will be discussing where they would be positioned in Zambia. There might be a case, for example, for at any rate part of a British battalion to be on the Zambesi, but of course we are insisting that it be on the Zambian side of the Zambesi.

Mr. Michael Foot: Would the Prime Minister say what is the legal position in respect of responsibility for the Kariba Dam at the present time? If the illegal Government of Southern Rhodesia has abrogated its rights to be responsible for the maintenance of the dam, have not

the Government of this country directly assumed responsibility for maintaining it?

The Prime Minister: There are many difficulties about it. In the first place, this was built as an international operation, not for the supply of electricity to Southern Rhodesia only. Indeed, the British taxpayer and the British Treasury were very heavily involved, certainly in connection with the guarantees. This is one reason why we believe that it would be a gross breach of everything ever intended when the dam was built if there were an attempt, for reasons of a quarrel between the illegal régime of Rhodesia and Zambia, to cut off the electricity power supply to Zambia. That is the position. On the other hand, while the Smith régime is illegal and therefore has no more authority to run the Kariba power station than to run anything else in Rhodesia, we have the practical fact to face, that his troops have de facto control of the Kariba Dam, and however much we may regret that situation, in present circumstances it can be put right only by putting in other troops, which we do not propose to do. But we intend to take every effective action by economic power to bring this illegal régime to an end as quickly as possible.

Mr. Heath: May I return to the question about Kariba? I do not wish to press the Prime Minister about any other things he may have in his mind on this subject. I only wish to ask him for one clear undertaking. He has said that the forces going to Zambia—which we support—are for purely defensive purposes. As he has never intended to use national or international forces in Rhodesia, in fact this means that these forces in Zambia will not cross on to Rhodesian soil or infringe Rhodesian air space, even if there is action in Kariba. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a matter——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have argued this question so far without too much heat. Too much heat means not enough light. Mr. Heath.

Mr. Heath: It is a matter of the utmost importance concerning the use of British forces. I ask the Prime Minister to say that, whatever other things he may have in mind, it is not his intention to use British forces to invade Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister: This is of the utmost importance, but I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asked, and I will tell him why. I have said—and I stand by this—that we believe it wrong to use British forces for the purpose of restoring constitutional rule, that is, for taking over Rhodesia and reinstating a constitutional Government. I have said that we are opposed to the use of the forces which, if we can reach agreement with President Kaunda we shall send to Zambia, for the purpose of any military confrontation in battle, if hon. Members like to put it this way, whether by air or on the ground, with the Rhodesian forces. But I have said—and I stand by this—that if Mr. Smith uses his illegitimate control over this international project, the Kariba Dam, to destroy the economy of Zambia, and indeed very seriously to disrupt our own economy, we cannot stand idly by. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, will understand that I cannot go into all the possible ways in which one could deal with it, but there are more ways of dealing with an electric power station than choking it with cream.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is essential that the Prime Minister should make his position absolutely clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is far too important a matter for jeering. We have supported the Prime Minister in his desire to send troops to Zambia. But he has used the phrase, "we cannot stand idly by". As he has used that phrase, and as he has suggested since that there are other ways of dealing with Mr. Smith's Government if there should be an interference with the power station on Rhodesian territory, he must say this: is it in his mind concerned with other means, this phrase "stand idly by", or does he envisage military intervention in Rhodesia? This must be made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister now.

The Prime Minister: It is important. It is quite fair that the question should be asked and that I should answer it. I have said that while we do not contemplate the use of these forces in an aggressive rôle against Rhodesia, and certainly not in support of troops of other countries, providing them with air cover against Rhodesia or any general military movement, I mean what I said—that we should not stand idly by but should take

whatever action was necessary in order to fulfil the deterrent threat which is involved there. If that did mean a limited operation we should be prepared to undertake that operation.
I think that it is important that the whole House should realise what the situation is. For a year the right hon. Gentleman's Government were blackmailed and for a year our Government have been blackmailed by the threat to cut off this electric power. I have had it from Mr. Smith many times and I suspect that it was a nightmare with which the right hon. Gentleman had to live for a very long time. We have to envisage a situation in which Mr. Smith—or perhaps it would not be Mr. Smith, for I have always taken the view that he is nothing like as bad as some of the people around him—or someone might go mad in Rhodesia and be tempted to cut off the electric power, destroying or distorting a large section of our industry. In those circumstances, if we had forces there it would be the height of folly to say that in no circumstances should we be prepared to make our deterrent effective. This is a deterrent. I hope in heaven's name, as I am sure does the House, that it need be no more than a deterrent. I do not need to lecture the right hon. Gentleman on the importance of a deterrent, but I believe that the fact of this deterrent will be a final guarantee that this action will not be taken by Mr. Smith's ràgime. But it is no good talking about a deterrent unless you are prepared to make it effective.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: I must intervene now. I have tried to see that a cross-section of the House took part in the questioning——

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will have a chance to make his point of order when I have finished addressing the House on a matter of order. I have endeavoured to call a cross-section of the House in the questioning, but I must protect the debate which is ahead of us, and which, singularly enough, happens to be on Rhodesia. Mr. Eldon Griffiths wished to raise a point of order.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the importance of the statement just made by the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, may I have your leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on the ground that this is by any measure a matter of definite, clear and urgent public importance, which I believe ought to be debated now because of the possibility that these British forces may be used in manners which have not been described by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: This happens to be perhaps the easiest application under Standing Order No. 9 in history on which to give a Ruling. Standing Order No. 9 permits the Chair to allow an hon. Member, because a matter is of definite, urgent, public importance, to raise that matter and for it to take precedence over the Orders of the Day so that a debate may take place. The simple fact is that there is no earlier moment ahead of us than the present moment and we are now to debate Rhodesia, so there is no question of Standing Order No. 9 being invoked at all.

CENTRAL AFRICA

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I beg to move,
That, in view of the grave danger to all the populations of Central Africa inherent in a policy which may well destroy the most thriving economy in Central Africa, that of Rhodesia, and of the repeated expressions and acts of loyalty to the Sovereign by Rhodesian Governments and by the constitutionally elected Smith régime. Her Majesty's Government should reconsider its whole Rhodesian policy and, in particular, the policy of sanctions.
If anything makes it clear that a Motion of this kind should be before the House now, it is what the Prime Minister said a few moments ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to leave the Chamber please do so quietly?

Mr. Fell: What the Prime Minister said represents the gravest statement we have yet had from the present Government on this terribly difficult situation. Let us make no mistake about that. It is the first time that we have heard threats bandied about in the House about deterrents—[Interruption.]—and about the possible use of force by the Smith régime. So far as I am aware, the Smith régime has made no reference to the possible use of force by that régime. Yet we are now embarking on what I can only call a highly dangerous and highly provocative policy. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Fell: One of my hon. Friends asked whether it would not be an act of war if our 'planes invaded or flew over Rhodesian territory.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Fell: I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will forgive me if I do not give way but continue with my speech.
It may be that the Prime Minister is right in saying that legally it would not be an act of war, but make no mistake that it would he the bloodiest act of civil war, and from that there would ensue a holocaust in that part of Africa with literally our own British people fighting against British people in Rhodesia. That would be the result of it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can conduct this debate in a dignified manner which is worthy of the House of Commons. Bursts of anger or other universal comment, as it were, are understandable, but individual shouting is not, and I deprecate it.

Mr. Fell: I was saying when you kindly intervened, Mr. Speaker, that——

Dr. M. S. Miller: Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove) rose——

Mr. Fell: I will not give way at the moment. I hope now to bring down the temperature of the House. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think this is a laughing matter, but I do not. It so happens that I was fortunate in the Ballot and have won time in the House. That procedure has been protected by generations of Leaders of the House and by generations of Speakers for back benchers. It also happens that what I intend to say this afternoon I recognise to be highly controversial. I hope, therefore, than hon. Members will forgive me and bear with me if I do not give way, particularly to interruptions, but try to put the point I wish to make as quickly as possible. Repeated interruptions only make things more difficult and will delay me making this point. I wish to be as brief as I can because hon. Members on both sides of the House also wish to speak.
I hope to bring the temperature of the House down a little by, first, giving my heartiest congratulations to Her Majesty's Government for their brilliant conduct—which was full of guts, determination and courage—at the United Nations concerning the matter of Fiji.

Hon. Members: Really.

Mr. Fell: If hon. Gentlemen opposite will listen to me they will see to what I am referring. I wish to talk about the United Nations and its resolution on Rhodesia. The House will see that the resolution on Fiji
Reaffirms the inalienable right of the people of Fiji to freedom and independence in conformity with the provisions of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.
The resolution further
…requests the administering Power"—
that is, us—

to take, as a matter of urgency, measures to repeal all discriminatory laws and to establish an unqualified system of democratic representation based on the principle of one man, one vote'.
Britain, perhaps because America was on the same side in this matter, opposed the resolution. Indeed, only Britain and America opposed it. This is surely somewhat in contradiction to the support which Britain gave to the resolution on Rhodesia. I wonder what would have been the position had Fiji been an island off the coast of East or West Africa. We know perfectly well what the situation would have been.

Mr. Charles Longbottom: Mr. Charles Longbottom (York) rose——

Mr. Fell: The Security Council——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Fell: I am sorry, but I will not give way now. I wish to complete this part of my remarks and, if pressed, I will give way later.
The Security Council resolution of 22nd November on Rhodesia called on the United Kingdom Government to
…quell this rebellion of the racist minority.
It also called on Britain
…to take all other appropriate measures which would prove effective in eliminating the authority of the usurpers and in bringing the minority régime in Southern Rhodesia to an immediate end.
It further called on the United Kingdom, since the Constitution of 1961 had broken down,
…to take immediate measures in order to allow the people of Southern Rhodesia to determine their own future consistent with the objectives of General Assembly Resolution 1514(xv)".
Why did Britain support that resolution? Did she do so because of the aims and objects of the Charter of the United Nations, because she believes in the United Nations—in the reason why it was set up—or because of one reason only; the reason of fear? The reason why Britain had so little confidence in herself and so little respect for herself was that she could not stand out on any issue against the might of the Afro-Asian group in the United Nations.
It might help the House if I read Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. Unless this Article is upheld the


United Nations will continue to be a shambles, as it is now and as it has been for years. Unless it is upheld the United Nations will continue to forget its principles and indulge all the time not in principles but in politics. Thus, one has the situation, which has gone on all the time, of the United States voting in the United Nations on matters according to her own particular political interest. On this occasion the political interest was gaining the support of the Afro-Asian group in the United Nations.
Article 2(7) states:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State…
This was a matter within the domestic jurisdiction either of Rhodesia or of the British Government. It was certainly not a matter within the jurisdiction of the United Nations under the terms of the Charter.
When will some great Power have the courage to stand up at the United Nations and do something that may be unpopular there but which will, by sticking to the original principles and aims of the United Nations, give that organisation some chance of working? The House may think it unusual for me to try to find a way for the United Nations to work, but when faced, as we are in this country, with two sides of the House determined to try to make the United Nations work, I suppose that we have to see whether we can find a way of doing it. But we shall not do it until members of the United Nations have some regard for United Nations principles.
The history of the United Nations is a history of failure. It has failed in every major undertaking. It failed in Hungary and in Korea, in Cuba, in Vietnam and in Indonesia. It failed in Katanga and in Suez. It has failed in every major undertaking——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not go too wide, otherwise we may debate the whole of the history of the United Nations, and this would take us away from Rhodesia.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your intervention, because it brings me back. I was going into this at some little length because I pray that

the Commonwealth will not fall into the errors of the United Nations.
The Commonwealth at the moment is on a brink. Indeed, the Prime Minister expressed his fear on 23rd November about the multi-racial Commonwealth disappearing under the weight of the Rhodesian crisis. I think it true that if Britain, as the centre of the Commonwealth, and if other Commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand——

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): Nigeria.

Mr. Fell: And Nigeria—perhaps the hon. Member would like to stand up if he wishes to interrupt.
If those other Commonwealth countries are to have the whole of their policies dictated to by the majority of the members of the Commonwealth, whether they are right or wrong, the Commonwealth must fail. In other words, if the Afro-Asian group within the Commonwealth is to dictate to the whole of the Commonwealth, and the rest of the Commonwealth is to accept that group's diktat on every occasion, right or wrong, the Commonwealth must disintegrate. The Prime Minister was right in fearing that action over Rhodesia might lead to much worse things than people had, perhaps, at first thought.
I want to refer to British responsibility for Africans. A Commission which reported in 1929 on Closer Union of the Dependencies in Eastern and Central Africa stated:
The general principles of native policy were ably reviewed in the Report of the Parliamentary Commission. In Chapter II of that Report it was pointed out that the obligation resting on those responsible for the government of those territories should properly be regarded as a threefold trusteeship:—
First, for the moral and material development of the native inhabitants;
Secondly, for humanity as a whole (the duty here being to develop the vast economic resources of these territories for the benefit of the whole world…
Thirdly, for the immigrant communities, whose initiative, knowledge, and material resources are necessary instruments in the fulfilment of the first two tasks.
I believe that definition of the basic responsibilities towards Africans is unquestionable. Some may think that more


should be put into it, but that was the view then expressed. I believe that these requirements have been well and truly lived up to by the British Commonwealth.
Imperial rule of the Colonies has been good, but there is an extraordinary and wide distinction between those Colonies which were run as Imperial Colonies from the Crown in this country and those Colonies—of which Rhodesia is the outstanding example—which were early given control of their own affairs.
The same report from which I have quoted also says:
The remoteness of the controlling authority from the scene of action is in itself a great source of weakness.
This is no doubt why Rhodesia was given almost complete independence 42 years ago.
Local opinion when it comes into conflict with a distant authority has always the advantage of more direct and immediate contact with reality. When it comes to a real struggle, opinions derived from the reading of books and despatches have little power to withstand those formed by contact with life, and the Imperial Government tends in consequence to surrender in the end to the more full-blooded convictions of those on the spot. Public opinion at home suffers from the same disability. Confronted with the emphatic assertions of those who have first-hand acquaintance with the facts it easily becomes uncertain of itself, vacillating and divided, and consequently ineffective as a controlling force.
That is true of the Colonies. It is true of the present Malawi, it is true of Zambia, to a lesser extent. It is true of Kenya, and of other such Colonies in Africa. Because of the reasons pointed out in that Report, the Africans are usually in no such good case in any of those Colonies directly ruled from here as the Africans in Rhodesia, the truth being that many thousands of Africans have gone to seek employment in Rhodesia from those other former Colonies, not least, some 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 from Malawi.
In view of this and the transformation that has taken place in Rhodesia over the last six years, we cannot lightly say that the British Government has in fact been responsible for all that has been done in Rhodesia. Indeed, we must say precisely the reverse. What has happened in Rhodesia? Basically, this was a sparse land of many nomadic tribes, living under witchcraft, divided, massacring each other

in tribal wars, subject to the most terrible diseases, incapable of coping with animal diseases in their herds, such as those caused by the tsetse fly. They were decimated, and were not increasing. They were living a life of the greatest fear, not only of each other—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh at this, but does he believe that the Africans were in a happy case in 1894? If the Under-Secretary believes that, let him say so.

Mr. Foley: We are living in 1965.

Mr. Fell: Indeed we are. That was perfectly clear from the statement by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I accept that we are living in 1965, but anybody who disregards history disregards it at his peril. Let us look at the history, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. Through settlers going out from this country and missionaries in large numbers going out from this country, over the course of time the plagues and ill-health were overcome. In the course of time the tribles stopped killing each other and massacres ceased to take place. In the course of time Rhodesia was built up into the greatest and most successful country in the whole of Africa.

Mr. William Molloy: I should like to follow the hon. Member's argument. If he is saying that advancement of Rhodesia apropos the indigenous population was so great, why were the Smith Government not prepared to take the Africans into their confidence and allow them the franchise which they would enjoy in their own Government?

Mr. Fell: I am grateful for that intervention, because once again it will take me on a little faster, and I have much to say. The simple answer to the question why the Rhodesians are not keen to give what the United Nations wants them to have—[HON. MEMBERS: "What we want them to have."]—I am glad to hear that it is what all hon. Members opposite want, although it is not what the Prime Minister wants—[An HON. MEMBER: "Answer the question."]—one man, one vote in Rhodesia straight away. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what the United Nations is after. If all hon. Members opposite and the Prime Minister say, "Oh, not today", will they please tell me who knows best when the Africans will be qualified to govern Rhodesia?


[An HON. MEMBER: "Not the hon. Member."] We in this country say they are the Rhodesian Government who have had control of affairs for 40 years.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Fell: No, I cannot. The fact is that the Rhodesian Government—this theory was borne out in the statement I read earlier—through their experience and enormous success in building up this great country, better employ Africans from all the neighbouring States than those States can employ them themselves. They therefore have vast numbers of Africans going into Rhodesia for employment, and Rhodesia has built itself up under the Government it has had for 42 years into the greatest and most successful economy in the whole of Africa north of South Africa. That is the truth, and no one can deny it.
We are now in a position in which we say that we have to go on ruling Rhodesia until such time as Rhodesia agrees in some negotiations on what she is to do about bringing one man, one vote to Rhodesia. We had negotiations, and I shall not say much about them because this matter has been gone over time and again. Mr. Smith was given only the choice between Scylla and Charybdis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Smith was given no other choice. A double-headed coin was tossed. Does anyone wish to interrupt?

Mr. Richard: Yes. Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. If the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) does not give way, the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) must not persist.

Mr. Fell: The negotiations finally broke down because it was impossible for Smith to agree to a suggestion that there should be a Royal Commission to go into all this and in any case when the Royal Commission reported, whether it reported in favour or against Smith, the finding would not necessarily be accepted by Her Majesty's Government. That is an impossible situation. Everyone knows that when living in a country such as Rhodesia, which is surrounded by nations that are African-dominated, and

living in a country around which one has seen country after country given independence over the last few years and watched with horror and sometimes disbelief thousands upon thousands of Africans being slaughtered in the course of Uhuru—for Uhuru does not mean freedom so much as it means death— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Hon. Members had better look at the facts. Can they tell me how many were slaughtered in Zanzibar? Will they tell me how many were slaughtered in Ruanda Urundi? Will they examine their consciences and tell me how many have been slaughtered in the Southern Sudan? Would they like to make a guess at the numbers of families in the whole of Central Africa who have been slaughtered in the past 10 years? I should not like to guess because we do not know the figures. What we do know is that there have been, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: In Central Africa?

Mr. Fell: In the whole of Central Africa, and I am including Zanzibar. We do not know the exact figure, but we know that vast numbers have been slaughtered. whether there had been vast or small numbers, I should have thought that the hon. Member would be most interested and would have some fear, as the Rhodesians have, about handing over their country——

Mr. Norwood: Mr. Norwood rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) must not persist if the hon. Member in possession of the Floor refuses to give way.

Mr. Fell: I should have thought that the hon. Member would have some fear such as the Rhodesians have about handing their country over to a régime dominated by Africans in the light of the tragedies which have surrounded them over the past few years. Quite apart from anything else—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know that in the past I have given way every time I have been interrupted.

Mr. Richard: No, the hon. Member has not.

Mr. Fell: I do not wish to give way again, because I have already spoken for a long time and I do not want to detain the House for very much longer, but I still have a certain amount to say.
We have the position in which Mr. Smith, because he could not accept the premise of the British Government that he should have independence only provided that he was prepared to say that Africans should be given final control of the country, was forced to declare U.D.I. It is all very well for us here to say that the pressures were not there, but it is very difficult for us to know the feelings of the Rhodesians. It is very difficult for us living in Britain which is not surrounded by countries that continually have blood baths.
How do hon. Gentlemen think the people of Rhodesia felt when they were reading about the Congo troubles? They are not very far away to the north. How do they think the Rhodesians felt when they heard about the blood baths in Ruanda Urundi and Zanzibar? If we were in the position of the Rhodesians, in the last country to gain its independence, we would not be willing to allow Her Majesty's Government to tell us when there should be universal suffrage and the basis on which it should be given.

Mr. Longbottom: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that he is not trying to mislead the House, but surely the issue is not a matter of our dictating to the Smith régime as to whether independence should be given or not. We were acting on the 1961 Constitution which was already there and which did not envisage, and never has envisaged, African majority rule for a considerable number of years. My hon. Friend is making a mistake when he says that it is an issue between making a U.D.I. or handing over majority rule to Africans.

Mr. Fell: After all, I expect a certain amount of unanimity on this side of the House. If my hon. Friend will recall the five points laid down by the Prime Minister he will see what I am getting at. The five points were perfectly clear. They make it impossible for me to see how Smith could accept on the basis of those five points.

Mr. Richard: He did accept.

Mr. Fell: The fact is that a position was reached when Smith could not agree to the terms of the Prime Minister. [Hors. MEMBERS: "To the Royal Commission."] Yes, which, as I have said, was a choice between Scylla and Charybdis. The Prime Minister said that if the Royal Commission reported that Smith should have immediate independence on his own terms the British Government would not accept the Commission's recommendation. What, therefore, was the use of it? It was ridiculous to suggest a Commission in those terms. Of course I concede that no Government can say, "We are appointing a Royal Commission and this Commission can overrule anything that we say." Why was a Royal Commission proposed? It was simply to gain time and to cause delay. I am not disputing that a Royal Commission should have been offered. What I am saying is that it was not possible for Smith to accept it any longer.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I can see the point that the hon. Member is making. As far as Smith was concerned the terms of independence were unacceptable, but when he had the substance of independence as long as he did not declare it, what was the point of declaring it?

Mr. Fell: I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member would realise that the reasons were all sorts of factors which were apparent to those who were living in Rhodesia—for instance, all the muddle of the Federation. The truth is that Rhodesia came to the final position where she no longer trusted Britain and no longer trusted our Prime Minister. Therefore, under the greatest pressure from the Rhodesians in Rhodesia, Smith declared independence.
Now we have the situation where sanctions have been imposed. As a number of my hon. Friends asked in the debate on the Bill a few days ago, and not only they but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), if sanctions did not succeed, what then? The answer was either more sanctions or, secondly, force if more sanctions do not succeed. These are the only logical possibilities if the Government are a Government at all and believe in their policy. It is no good backing the United Nations in a policy of destruction of the Smith régime unless the Government have the


courage and determination to carry out that plan. Does anybody really believe that sanctions will succeed in bringing down the Smith régime? They may succeed in destroying the Rhodesian economy and driving back to Malawi and Dr. Banda 50,000 Africans who would have no work to do and no houses to live in.

Mr. Richard: Absolute humbug.

Mr. Fell: It is not absolute humbug. I can tell hon. Gentlemen that if this happens it will be Her Majesty's Government in Britain again who will have to send more and more money to Malawi, to look after Dr. Banda's people who have returned from Rhodesia.

Mr. Paget: And to Rhodesia.

Mr. Fell: I am glad to see that at least some hon. Members on the other side—[HON. MEMBERS: "One Member."]—have a major concern for the Africans who will be the first to be hit and hit hard by sanctions and by everything that the Government are doing.
Now we have the follow-on which was suggested by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and myself in that previous debate. We have the follow-on of the first hint of force. I do not go further than that, and I do not want to exaggerate the position as far as force is concerned. If the Prime Minister of a Commonwealth country believes his life to be in danger, or if he is under heavy and dangerous pressure from Communists and other subversive elements, and if he has not the strength to govern and protect his own country and for that reason applies to us to send him help, I believe it to be almost impossible for the British Government to refuse him. But I also believe that it is odd to send out Javelins to help keep the internal security of Zambia. Indeed, we were told this afternoon that it is not for internal security. It is as a deterrent to stop any attacks on Zambia.
I want to know who wants to attack Zambia. Rhodesia's biggest customer in Africa is Zambia—there is a 30 per cent. trade each way. It is Smith who wants to attack? Smith may be a straight talker, and some would say that he is too straight for the Prime Minister and the politicians in this country do not understand such things, but, by heaven, he is no fool.

The last thing that Smith wants to do in this situation is to destroy Zambia. The British Government have just cut off all imports from Rhodesia and they are trying to cut off exports to Rhodesia as well. They are doing everything they can, and professedly, to bring down the economy of Rhodesia, with no idea of what they will set up in its place—they have not got to that stage—so how can anyone really imagine that Rhodesia, under the threat of having her economy destroyed, will try to get rid of one of her best customers? Of course not. Only a fool would use that argument.
We heard the argument used today that if there is interruption of supplies to Zambia from Kariba we would regard this, apparently, as an act of war and we would send British troops. At least that is what I understood from the Prime Minister's statement, that we could not ignore that and would have to attack—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but this is what was said, and we must examine it carefully for a moment. Did it not occur to anyone in the House, when the pylon was blown up the other day, a few days before President Kaunda asked for troops, that this was another move in the direction of the use of force? [An HON. MEMBER: Of course."] I am glad that it occurred to someone.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What proof has the hon. Gentleman got of what happened?

Mr. Fell: Exactly. There is no proof of anything. There is no proof that it was blown up by Communist saboteurs, there is no proof that it was blown up by opponents of Kaunda, there is no proof that it was not a "fix". I am not for a moment suggesting that it was a fix——

Mr. Norwood: Then what is the hon. Gentleman suggesting?

Mr. Fell: If subversive elements of some kind unknown did damage the Kariba dam to such an extent that power supplies were stopped to the Copper Belt in Zambia, what would the Prime Minister do about that? Would he go in without the permission of the Smith régime, which this afternoon he called the régime in de facto control?

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Of Kariba.

Mr. Fell: Of Kariba, exactly. Will he go in without the permission of the Smith régime and by force take over the protection, as we might put it, of the Kariba dam? This is getting precious close to what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and I forecast the other day. We get very close to a situation in which a reason may be found for Britain to use force against the Smith régime.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fell: No; I have very nearly finished.
As I have said before, I do not believe that the Smith régime had any alternative. I am getting heartily sick of the cant and hypocrisy which spouts from Ministers in various positions in this country. To describe the Rhodesians as people committing treason, as revolutionaries, putting them in the light of men who loathe Britain, of people who would do this country an ill, of people who have no respect for the institutions of this country or, indeed, for Her Majesty the Queen, is to make a monstrous assertion and a monstrous distortion of the facts. Yet, time and again, we have heard from the Government Front Bench epithets being thrown at the Rhodesians which were never used against the revolutionary rulers of Zanzibar, epithets which have seldom been used against our enemies.
We are now talking of our friends the Rhodesians, the friends of Britain and, what is more, the friends of the Africans—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Can right hon. and hon. Members not get it into their heads that there is another side to the picture, that, if we backed the Smith regime, if we had strong enough leadership to stand up to the Afro-Asian group, and we had guts enough in this country to recognise the Smith régime as the de facto Government of Rhodesia, we might well save the lives of tens of thousands of Africans in Central Africa, we might well save the whole of the economy of Rhodesia from destruction, and we might then save Rhodesia from, perhaps, becoming a part of South Africa, which none of us wants to see. We might in that way give some hope

to the forces of common sense in Central Africa.
This breakdown of law and order is not a feature of Central Africa alone, but I should be out of order if I were to stray in this debate into other parts of the world. Nevertheless, it is, in fact, a greater danger to the future peace of the world than the nuclear bomb has ever been. We see the callous disregard of principles, the extraordinary way in which the United Nations has descended into becoming the political mouthpiece of the majority powers in the United Nations. It is extraordinary how the United Nations ignores all sorts of troubles unless there happens to be political kudos in doing something about them.
What did the United Nations ever attempt to do about Tibet? Tibet is not Central Africa, of course, but the example is still good. We know that the United Nations did nothing. What did it attempt to do about Zanzibar?—nothing. So history of failure has gone on. I fear what will happen if the United Nations becomes an organisation run by countries who happen to form the majority group. The United States of America has the same vote as the Congo or Ghana, on the principle of one man, one vote? Is it not stupid?
Yet, in this situation, when the United Nations no longer has respect for principles of law and order but only for the principles of majority politics, when there is no leader left in the world outside France who has enough faith in his people to take an independent line——

Dr. Bray: What about Algeria?

Mr. Fell: Hon. Members may make funny little cracks, but it does not get us anywhere.

Mr. James Johnson: The hon. Gentleman talks constantly about the Rhodesians and dealings with the United Nations. Will he please say something about the millions of black Africans instead of about the white people? Does he never talk about the black Africans? Have they no place in the economy? Does he speak for them? Mr. Smith does not.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Member cannot have listened. I was talking about black


Africans. It is not white Africans who have returned to Malawi because there is no work for them in Rhodesia. These are black Africans.

Mr. Johnson: But when the hon. Member speaks about Rhodesia he speaks about the white Rhodesians. What about the masses of Africans who live there?

Mr. Fell: I do not intend to continue listening to rather ridiculous interventions like that when the hon. Member has made no attempt to follow my argument, which is that there is a very distinct danger that if one man, one vote were introduced quickly in Rhodesia it could lead to untold hardship, not only for the whites but for the Africans, too. That is a point of view, although the hon. Member may not agree with it.
The world is in a sorry case, for no longer does any nation stand up and say what it believes to be the truth. No longer is there any faith in institutions. Even the Commonwealth is going the same way. The only great leader left——

Mr. Michael Jopling: Salazar?

Mr. Fell: —who has the guts to say what he believes is General de Gaulle in France. [Laughter.] It may be that hon. Members opposite are so tight-minded and so narrow-minded that it is impossible for them to recognise the enormous job which General de Gaulle has done for France in a very few years because of his faith in France and himself. I do not say that General de Gaulle is good for Britain, but it is a good thing to have a General de Gaulle in the world, for at least we have one man who has the guts to stand by his principles and beliefs.
We in this country have a Prime Minister who is in some ways the greatest Prime Minister this country has seen. He is the greatest personal public relations man that we have ever seen as Prime Minister. His name is known from Downing Street furniture removers to striptease in the Scilly Isles. The Prime Minister appears more than any Prime Minister has ever appeared before in people's private homes. Some people have even been rude enough to call him the goggle box wonder.

Mr. K. Zilliacus: Stick to the point.

Mr. Fell: I am sticking to the point which I want to make. But the Prime Minister, in my opinion, has made an unbelievable mess of affairs outside this country. Quite apart from his errors in taxation and everything else in this country, his greatest error has been in his handling of foreign affairs. In Vietnam, for political purposes of his Administration——

Mr. Robert Sheldon: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule that this is not a foreign affairs debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is tending to go a little wide. He should keep to the Motion.

Mr. Fell: I accept that completely. I will close on this note: I am grateful to the House for having been so patient in listening to a speech which was bound to be full of much controversy. I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister will do something constructive about what follows his policy, for it we go on in the direction which he has taken at the moment it is almost impossible that war between this country and Rhodesia, or civil war, call it what we may, will be avoided. After Mr. Smith has made some suggestion that an approach might not be unwelcome, is it not possible for some action to be taken? Even the Prime Minister has hinted at that possibility. Can the Prime Minister not rise up and be a big enough man to take the initiative? He will not suffer in the eyes of the British people. For the first time he will gain real stature for being a man. For the country, make no mistake, is not solidly behind the Prime Minister in a policy which could bring the whole of Central Africa to ruination.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: It may be wholly right that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) should put on record his views about the Rhodesian situation, because if ever a nineteenth century case were espoused in this House in the middle of the twentieth century, his garbled version and the half-truths which he has given this afternoon represent a classic example.
What he and a minority of his hon. Friends fail to face is that when they talk


of Rhodesia and Africa they talk of a white minority and not of the vast African majority and of the many white people who have settled there and who accept a multi-racial society. What about the people now living in Kenya and accepting the society there? Who would have thought a few years ago that we should see a suitable type of society developing in Kenya such as that which is developing under the leadership of Jomo Kenyatta?
It is because of this position that the world is moving not on an axis of East-West but on an axis of North-South. We have to come to terms with it. When the hon. Member talks in a derisory manner of the Afro-Asia bloc, he is talking about two-thirds of the world's population. In the world of tomorrow we shall be the white minority and the coloured people will be the majority. Not only are they numerically the majority, but possibly they will be economically superior, too. We must face this situation. The hon. Member talked about tribal factors in Africa and about some of the things which have happened there, but we have not much to boast about in our society when a so-called cultured nation in 1939–45 in Europe sent six million people to the gas chamber. These facts, which must be faced, are the key to the issue.
If this country fails to topple the Smith régime and to replace it by constitutional Government which will guarantee eventual majority rule in Rhodesia, we shall not only fail the British people but we shall fail in the eyes of the world, and any threat that now exists from elsewhere of intervention in Rhodesia might come in greater measure.
A great many hon. Members welcome the further measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today, not only those in relation to establishing a force in Zambia, but also the categorical assurance he gave about the Kariba Dam and its protection on British territory. This is essential.
Much has been said lately about whether or not sanctions can be successful. A recent article in the Sunday Times stated that possibly sanctions could have succeeded against Mussolini if they had been applied effectively. We must see in this case that they

are so applied, by this country and by the rest of the world. We must face squarely the issue of oil sanctions and, if necessary, be prepared to blockade the ports to stop oil going into Rhodesia. We can assist other nations which might be short of oil, even at great cost. But it is either this course or—and we must face this—military intervention which may come.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Prime Minister's statement about sending troops in certain circumstances if anything happened to the Kariba Dam. Would it not have been better if the Prime Minister had said that the troops would go if it could be shown that electricity from the dam had been stopped by some action of the Smith Government or the Smith country?

Mr. Orme: That would surely be closing the door after the horse had bolted. We tried to take that line before U.D.I. We tried to prevent it to the last, but it still came. In view of that lesson, we should take preparatory action now for the protection of the Kariba Dam.
I am the last person to advocate the use of force for its own sake. But there comes a time when one has to face up to the responsibility. I speak now not just as a Member of Parliament but as a former Service man as well. This is not an issue that one takes lightly.
We must ask ourselves whether other African States and other nations will stand back from this situation. What will happen if intervention comes, say, from North Africa? Do we begin scurrying about saying that we have some responsibility? Britain must be firm now. We must either say that this territory is British and our responsibility or that we can do nothing about it and will leave it to be settled as the world thinks best.
Surely we want to build a multi-racial society in Rhodesia—and that is one of the most difficult things to do. The white immigrant population in Rhodesia is exceptionally recent in arrival; two-thirds have gone there since 1945. That is one of the prime difficulties. Nevertheless, if we ignore the 4 million Africans in the country we shall also in effect ignore two-thirds of the world as well. Can we


afford to do that in 1965 when this country is trying to take a moral stand on the situation?
Derisory mention has often been made of the United Nations. What would any hon. Member put in its place? What hope have we without some form of world organisation, with all its faults and warts? Are we not to attempt to make it work? Are we not at the moment carrying a majority of the United Nations with us on this issue? Britain must maintain her stand and hold that support.
It is for these reasons that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when asked directly today whether or not we would take action to protect our interests on our soil, gave the only answer posaction. The issue must be faced. This is not only a question of using force to reinstitute the 1961 Constitution. It is a question of action to protect our own livelihood and interests against the illegal régime and illegal Army and Air Force in Rhodesia.
Does any hon. Member doubt that had this been any other British territory, and one which did not have an Army and Air Force, we would not be governing it now directly and that the people who had attempted to set up an illegal régime would be under restriction? It is only to prevent bloodshed that military action has not taker. place. But African States ask, "If this is your territory, why do you not do something about it and replace Smith?" It is a difficult question to answer.
Nevertheless, I believe that Britain is prepared to face the situation that is developing. I believe that the minority in this House opposing action against Rhodesia is getting smaller and I hope that hon. Members in that minority will test the feeling of the House tonight by dividing on this issue. Let us stand up and be counted on this moral issue facing the nation.
There are right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite whose stand on this issue should not be derided. The support that they have given to the Government is an indication that the vast majority of our people support the actions taken so far and the stronger actions that the Government propose. An indication was given to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today that the harder the action taken the greater support he will get.
We cannot allow the Smith régime to be maintained by default or to establish a position where Mr. Smith can go on sneering at Britain as he does now. However, I think that the champagne party in Salisbury is ending. We must bring it to a quick end. We can only do that by establishing ourselves in the right and negotiating, when the times comes, not with Smith and his rebels but with people of all races in Rhodesia who have stood by Britain and constitutional action throughout this period.
This debate is very welcome. I have listened to all the debates on Rhodesia since the crisis began. I have noticed a greater tone of seriousness entering into them. We have had tonight some nonsense from the hon. Member for Yarmouth, but he has only succeeded in exposing the weakness and barrenness of the case of those who support Smith and his allies in this country. In this House there is overwhelming support for the action taken by the British Government.
I hope that arrangements can be made today with President Kaunda about the despatch of troops and that we can get action to make economic sanctions really tough so that we can bring down this illegal régime and replace it with constitutional Government.
I do not know how anybody in 1965 who has been elected to the House of Commons on a democratic franchise can deny the principle of "One man, one vote" to anyone else in the world, but the time has come for those who take that view to stand up and be counted. I am prepared to say that. I support the actions which I want the Government to take and they should say what action they want. I believe that the British people will come down firmly on the side of constitutional government and action by this country.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I find myself wondering which is the greater danger to a successful outcome of this terribly difficult situation—the Left wing of the Labour Party, or speeches like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I thought that my hon. Friend used his luck in the Ballot to singularly small advantage this


afternoon, and I disagree so fundamentally with the terms of his Motion that I feel impelled to speak.
There is grave danger to Africa, as the Motion says, but it arises from the inexcusable act of the former Rhodesian Ministers. They can hardly have thought that theirs was a lawful act, but they may have imagined that it was a domestic one. It was not. It was a decision taken in a world setting, and neither they nor we can opt out of that fact. The eyes of the Commonwealth and of the world are upon us, and rightly so, to see whether we—and that means this Parliament of ours here—have the firmness of purpose, based on understanding of realities, to handle a perilous crisis with wisdom. In a free Parliament, of course, any Motion can be tabled, but understanding of realities demands that this Motion be either withdrawn or defeated.
The Motion refers to expressions of loyalty. Expressions of loyalty are of less than no value when contradicted by actions. Refusal to recognise the Sovereign's representative in Rhodesia is an act of direct disloyalty to the Sovereign.

Mr. John Page: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the guarding of the representative of the Sovereign by a theoretically rebel régime is a good position for the representative of the Sovereign to find himself in?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think I am called upon to express a view on that. I am addressing myself to the terms of the Motion. The Motion speaks of expressions and acts of loyalty, and here we see glaringly an act of the grossest disloyalty. It is better that these things should be said plainly than in veiled words.

Mr. Fell: Mr. Fell rose——

Mr. Brooke: No. I have given way once.
This to me is the essence of our dispute with Mr. Smith and the other ex-Ministers, and all the actions of this Parliament of ours must be designed to lead the people of Rhodesia to realise the enormity of the act of disloyalty which has been committed by those ex-Ministers in their names. We

can still remain friends with the people of Rhodesia, white and black, because so many of them do not yet realise that. This crisis will be resolved—and Rhodesia will resume her forward march to a great future—when and only when public opinion among the wiser and more responsible people in Rhodesia has gathered enough strength to declare that it will not be led into isolation and eventual disaster by extremists any longer.
By the normal development of thought, that process will be shortened if we make our firmness of purpose absolutely clear, without wavering and, equally, without talk of violence or force. Rhodesian people with non-extremist views face in these coming days the destiny of having to take a great decision. Those who have to take great decisions in this world look around them to see what support they will have at the moment of truth. Inaction on our part, inaction such as the Motion calls for, would leave those people without hope, and, I would judge, drive them into the extremists' camp. Firmness here will strengthen their resolution and help to convince them that if they will take courage there is a hand of British friendship held out ready for them to grasp.
Let us think not only of Rhodesia but of Zambia, on which, through no fault of Zambia or the Zambian people, events in Rhodesia are throwing tremendous strains, as the Prime Minister said. I understand how difficult it would be for Members of Parliament to visit Rhodesia at this present juncture with much hope of their visit being beneficial or productive. But these difficulties do not exist in the case of Zambia, and I cannot help thinking that visits by responsible Members of this Parliament to Zambia and all its peoples just now would do nothing but good in helping to make known there our feelings and our desire to give them all the friendly help we can, and also, of course, in bringing back to Westminster the fullest understanding of their points of view.
Let me return to the subject of Rhodesia. The extremists who gained power at the last election there have blinded themselves to a fact of history which we as the Mother Country of the British Empire have had to learn by hard and long experience. It is that a minority


cannot indefinitely try to govern an indigenous majority, without provoking outbreak; which will in the end make it impossible to carry on government without using the methods of a police State. The only solution, if violence and bloodshed are to be avoided, is to press forward with the higher education and training of the indigenous majority.
The Rhodesian people have just cause to be proud of a splendid achievement in the material development of what less than 100 years ago was a savage land. That achievement now has to be matched by educational developments on a wide scale and up to the highest levels, in which. I trust, Britain will be ready to help generously.
Out of this present crisis, we and Rhodesia can sink into the vale of misery or we can rise to a fresh plateau of hope. It depends on firmness here and courage there. This Motion may serve some useful purpose because, whether it is voted on or withdrawn, it will show how few in the House of Commons are the individual voices which call for no action.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Rowland: It is a pleasure to follow the statesmanlike speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke). I was in Lusaka last year when British troops flew to Tanzania and Kenya and I remember the sense of relief in the European community in Zambia at that time that some kernel of security, in the shape of British troops, was going to be in East Africa. I am glad that the last British Government agreed to the request by the Governments of Tanzania and Kenya, because not only was it necessary but it established a highly desirable and useful precedent in the light of what we are discussing today. I think that it makes it easier for the British Government of today to justify sending troops to Zambia.
I welcome the Prime Minister's statement for several reasons. First, because President Kaunda asked us for troops. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that the West, if one may use the term without embarrassment to President Kaunda, is fortunate in the character and statesmanship of the President of Zambia. We must make no mistake about it, Zambia

is an important country to the western world, as well as being an important country in her own continent. I welcome the statement also because other nations, not members of the Commonwealth, might otherwise have sent forces, and I see no British, Zambian or African interest being served by the presence of non-Commonwealth forces in Zambia. I welcome the statement because I believe that the European community in Zambia will welcome it. We must never forget them. In all the talk of kith and kin about white Rhodesians, let us never forget that such talk of kith and kin is equally valid to white Zambians.
I welcome the statement, because the Kariba Dam may need protection. The power from Kariba is vital to Zambia's economy and, at one remove, it is vital to Britain's economy. Something like half of our copper comes from Zambia, and without that copper, which is as vital as oxygen to the human body, the British economy would be severely affected. These are my reasons for welcoming the Prime Minister's statement.
Having said this, I am puzzled by some of the responses of the Leader of the Opposition. I can never tell, on some occasions, whether he is being obtuse or weak. I set off by thinking the former and then I remember that he is a man of great ability and can only conclude that it is the latter.
The Prime Minister said, quite simply, I thought—this was one of the clearest statements the Prime Minister has made on this situation—that we could not "stand idly by" if Rhodesia were to cut the power supplies to the Copperbelt. In my opinion, this means that British forces might have to take defensive action in response to offensive action. In other words, if power is cut off by the Smith régime I regard that as an offensive action by Rhodesia against Zambia. This means that any attempt to take over the southern side of Kariba, from which the power is transmitted, would not be an offensive action by British or Zambian troops but would be a defensive action.

Mr. Paget: From a military point of of view I cannot imagine a worse method of defending a power station than fighting a battle over it. The one casualty which I should have thought would have been quite certain would be the power station.

Mr. Rowland: My hon. and learned Friend has anticipated a question which I shall ask later of the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations. I fully take the point. Let us be under no illusion about this. If the power were cut off, this would be an offensive act against Zambia. Therefore, any response by British forces, involving the crossing of the frontier, would in my opinion, and I am sure the opinion of the Government, not be an offensive action, but a defensive action, in response to offence by the other side. Yet the Leader of the Opposition's probing on this question seem to be remarkably similar in its stance to the line taken by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I hope that the similarity of these two stances may make the Leader of the Opposition think again.
The reason why we have to make it quite clear to Smith that we cannot allow him to cut off the power to Zambia is quite simple. As and when sanctions begin to bite in Rhodesia, one of the major trump cards which Rhodesia has is to be able to say, "If you do not call off the sanctions we will endeavour to wreck Zambia's economy". This is an obvious response by Smith to growing economic difficulties, and the only response to that is to make it clear that if Smith tries this he will not succeed physically, because we will pre-empt the southern bank of Kariba. I trust that the Leader of the Opposition, as he thinks over this situation, will realise that the British Government's policy on this is quite clear and that there can be no policy oher than the one being pursued.
I suppose, like some Shakespearean chronicle, that the hon. Members for Lancaster and York, not to mention the lesser dukedoms on Tonbridge and Surbiton, will once again have to come to the rescue of the Leader of the Opposition and prop him up into some sort of stance suitable for his important rôle in the current crisis.
I should like to ask the Minister of State a few questions, and I shall understand, when he speaks later, if he does not feel able to answer them, because these are delicate matters and may not be capable of precise answer at this time. I should like to ask him if the presence of British forces in Zambia will, in any way, be conditional on no other troops being present there from any other coun-

try? Secondly, can British forces be made available for internal security, possibly on the Copperbelt and possibly under Zambian command, if the Zambian Government so requested? Thirdly, I should like some assurance that British forces stationed in Zambia do not accept the siren invitation of Mr. Smith to cross the frontier and enjoy, as I have done, the swimming pool at Victoria Falls Hotel. I do not think that it is appropriate for British forces to franternise with an illegal and rebel régime.
Fourthly, are we in touch with the Zambian Government with regard to Zambia imposing trade embargoes against Rhodesia? The Prime Minister said that we were in touch with many other countries on this matter. I should like to know if Zambia is one of them. Next to ourselves, Zambia is the most important market for Rhodesian goods, but I personally would understand if we feel that we cannot expect Zambia to engage in outright trade sanctions against Rhodesia.
Fifthly, would the Government be prepared to consider guaranteeing the security of the Kariba Darn, even if Smith does not cut off power? I come to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). In this highly charged situation, even without the power being cut off by Smith—and I think that this is unlikely to occur unless he is desperate—there is the possibility of sabotage of this great installation. There is no doubt that if the worst were to happen, this would be the greatest manmade disaster ever known in Africa.
I should like some assurance that if, for any good reasons, we have some doubts about the ability of either the Zambian authorities, or Smith's régime, to guard the security of Kariba, the British Government would feel that it would be legitimate to take some action, even although power had not been cut off.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly continuing his determined policy of gradually squeezing the Smith régime and hoping that some sense will prevail. I think that this policy—we must face this—may well straddle both sides of a General Election in this country. It is therefore important, regardless of the


outcome of the next General Election, that the Government continue to have the support of the Opposition in this matter. The Opposition had a remarkable record of decolonisation in Africa when they were the Government. Most of British Africa is free because of the actions of the Conservative Government. I think that the Conservative Opposition must remember this and be true to their own past and true to the present demands on this nation when they consider their final response to today's important and grave announcements by the Prime Minister.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) has spoken in very moderate tones and very strong terms. I pay tribute first to the sincerity with which he expressed the views that he holds, different though they may be from mine. This is inevitably a rather controversial debate. The Prime Minister's statement at the beginning of the debate has, again perhaps inevitably, tended to raise the temperature.
I should like, while I can, before embarking on more controversial subjects, to congratulate the Government at any rate upon two matters. It was with great relief that I learned—it was announced yesterday—that financial aid to the multi-racial university in Salisbury will go forward. I think that this is extremely important if we are to maintain the concept of multi-racialism in Central Africa. I should also like to pay tribute to the courage which the Prime Minister showed yesterday in speaking of the possibility of a Parliamentary delegation going out to Rhodesia. The more contacts that are encouraged between responsible circles in Rhodesia and the people over here in the next few months, the better chance there will be of finding a solution.
We have travelled a long way in the three weeks since the breakdown of the Smith-Wilson talks led the Government to embark upon their present adventure vis-à-vis Rhodesia. On 11th November the Prime Minister scouted the idea of oil sanctions. Oil sanctions are now, I understand, the subject of international study. On 12th November the Prime Minister, in a courteous reply to an intervention of mine, told me that he thought that the sanctions then pro-

posed would be quite enough for the job. We heard him this afternoon reel off a list of other items to which sanctions are to be applied, which rather reminded me of Tom Lehrer's famous record about lithium, zircon, tantalum, and I do not know what other strange objects he cited.
We were told that the Rhodesian crisis was a strictly domestic Anglo-Rhodesian matter, but at the United Nations when we could not get our resolution accepted we found ourselves, in the view of the Government, obliged to accept the resolution moved by two other Powers, even in circumstances where our French allies thought it wrong even to vote at all.
We were told that troops would not be used, that there would be no question of force, unless they were invited in to restore law and order. Today we have been told that in certain circumstances, where a vital British interest is concerned, they might have to move without the breakdown of law and order or without invitation—that is to say, to the Rhodesian side of the Kariba Dam. We have moved a very long way in three weeks, a very short time.
Let me say a word about the economic measures to which the Prime Minister referred today. We have now got virtually a total economic embargo on Rhodesia imposed by this country. I have just seen on the tape what the administrative statement about these measures contains. It includes even a prohibition on the payment of pensions to retired people in Rhodesia. The House knows that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it perfectly plain that we could not go along with punitive sanctions. I cannot think of anything more punitive than the refusal to allow payment of pensions to retired people in Rhodesia. This is pretty tough stuff.

Mr. Zilliacus: Mr. Zilliacus rose——

Mr. Amery: I should like to get on a little before giving way. I dare say that in the course of the debate I shall have to give way, but time is short and many hon. Members wish to speak.
I was told personally on 12th November that the sanctions then proposed would be enough for the Government's purposes. Plainly it is now conceded that they are not enough and that nothing short of a 95 per cent. embargo—those


are the Prime Minister's own words—will do the trick.
The information that I have is that the sanctions formerly proposed would have taken 18 months to two years to take effect. I do not know what the estimate for the new measures is, but I would still think it will be quite a long time.
Let me say a word about the sending of troops to Zambia. We all recognise that the Government were faced with an extremely difficult and unpleasant decision, with the odds very finely balanced on both sides. There were great dangers either way. I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in his persuasive way, will be able to get President Kaunda to agree to the sending of troops on our terms. Let us assume for the moment that he does not. I would urge the House not to be unduly worried if the right hon. Gentleman fails in the mission which has been entrusted to him. Let us not exaggerate the peril too much.
I realise that if the right hon. Gentleman fails there will be a possibility that troops from other African countries will be sent, but I would remind the House that the logistic problems of sending troops from Egypt, from Ethiopia or from Ghana to Zambia are enormously complex. All the fuel on which modern forces depend for their air and road transport has to come through Southern Rhodesia. The food on which they would rely would have in large measure to come through Southern Rhodesia, unless it was transported over dust roads, impassable in the rainy months, from Dar-es-Salaam. It would be an almost impossible operation for the African States concerned to move the forces and maintain them there for themselves. The forces that operated in the Congo for the United Nations were able to operate only because the United States provided the transport and the necessary infrastructure. I cannot believe that the United States would undertake transport of this kind if the Government here were to advise them not to do so.
Nor do I believe that the Soviet Union would, or indeed can, undertake this task. As I ventured to remind the House the other day, when the Russians tried to support Mr. Gizenga's operation in Stanley-vine in the Congo, 1,500 miles nearer to

their own bases in Egypt than Rhodesia is, they found themselves unable to do it, partly from lack of fuel, partly from lack of food, partly from all the difficulties that attend the carrying out of operations that far from one's own base.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think we can all follow what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the difficulty of mounting a force. Will he tell the House whether his objection to the use of any kind of force is based upon the difficulty of doing it, on the one hand, or on the wrongness of doing it, on the other?

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think he knows perfectly well that I believe, as I understood the Government believed, as the Prime Minister appears to believe, that the use of force would be wrong. On the other hand, I had understood that it was the view of certain people—I do not know whether it is the Prime Minister's view; it is a view which has been widely reported in the Press—that, if we did not go into Zambia, other countries would, with a view to using force.
Therefore, there are many of us on both sides of the House who are very anxious to see the Prime Minister's initiative in Zambia succeed and who hope that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will be able to persuade President Kaunda, precisely because we are afraid that if we do not send forces to do nothing other countries will send forces to do something. I hope I make myself clear. All the same I am advising the House not to worry too much if the right hon. Gentleman fails in the mission which has ben entrusted to him, because it will be very difficult for the African Powers, based on Zambia, to undertake an operation against Rhodesia, and I do not think that the great Powers, who could make it possible, are likely to intervene.
But let us suppose for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman succeeds. Let us suppose that President Kaunda agrees to the sending of troops on the terms which the Prime Minister described at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon. Here I must say that there is one point which makes me very anxious indeed. As I understood him, the Prime Minister said


that he could not stand idly by when we had forces in Zambia if there was a cutoff of the power installations situated on the Rhodesian side of the Kariba Dam.
I may be wrong, but, as I understand it, that can only mean that British forces will be used to take physical control of the installations on the Rhodesian side of the Zambesi. We are, of course, dealing with a hypothetical situation. We have not yet received permission to send our troops to Zambia, so I do not want to raise the temperature too much about this, but I think that this would be putting ourselves in a position which, as I ventured to say at a public meeting the other day, could lead to a British civil war in Central Africa.
I do not think that we can allow our troops—an R.A.F. regiment, or whatever it may be—to be sent to Zambia with any ambiguity about their rôle; and if part of their rôle were to be that in certain circumstances they might have to invade Rhodesia to seize certain strategic points, we should be putting a strain on their loyalty which would make the Curragh mutiny look like very small beer indeed.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that if Mr. Smith and his colleagues were to take active steps against the Kariba Dam on the Rhodesian side of the border we should do nothing about it, that we should stand idly by and let it happen? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman had not bothered to intervene, I would have dealt with that point in any case. It seems intolerable that we should send our troops with a remit which could envisage the invasion of Rhodesia. Indeed, it would be quite contrary to everything the Government have said up to now, contrary to every assurance that we have been given, and on the basis of which assurances we have let a number of their enabling Bills and other Measures go through.
In what circumstances is it conceivable that Mr. Smith would wish to switch off the power installations on the Rhodesian side of the border? I can think of only one set of circumstances, and it is here that I should like to seek an assurance from the Government. I accept that we should send troops to protect the régime in Zambia, but it would be intolerable if

that régime took advantage of the protection afforded by the presence of British troops themselves to undertake the subversion of Rhodesia from Zambia, whether by subversive broadcasts, by sending gangs, by shipping weapons, or by tolerating other people using Zambian territory for this purpose. This would make us vicariously involved in aggression against Rhodesia, and this is something that we could not tolerate.

Mr. Richard: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman aright? Did he say that in his opinion broadcasts from Zambia to Rhodesia in an attempt to overturn the illegal régime there would be subversion, and that if Britain acquiesced in that, or if, from Zambian territory, from Bechuanaland, or from any neighbouring territory, she engaged in such broadcasts, she would be doing something wrong? What would we be doing wrong?

Mr. Amery: I apologise for not knowing what experience the hon. Gentleman has in these matters, but there is a great difference between news broadcasts, and broadcasting stations beaming appeals to the African population to strike, or to rise in revolt, or to do things of that kind. If the Zambian authorities were to use their radio stations to incite the African population in Rhodesia to disorder, it would be intolerable if at the same time we were affording them protection against retaliation which might fall on them if this subversive agitation were to be pushed too far.
I think that we have to ask ourselves what every staff officer has to ask himself in any military operation—what is the object of the exercise? The object of the exercise, as explained by the Prime Minister, is to defend Zambia. To defend Zambia against whom? Against Mr. Smith? I do not think so. We had better speak about these things frankly. They are bandied about in the Press every day, and there is no reason why we should not discuss them. I think we all know that troops would be sent to protect what is a reasonable and moderate Government in Zambia against extremists at home and against Afro-Asian countries situated further away which are importunate in their demands to be allowed to go to Zambia to "have a go" at Rhodesia. This is a strange commentary on the effects of majority rule in Zambia. It is


not uninteresting to note that the only way in which the democratically elected Government in Zambia can be maintained in a crisis may be by the intervention of British military forces.
I am not against introducing a barrier of British forces between Rhodesia and the extremists further to the north. I see the point of this. I fully support the Government on this proposition, if the other conditions which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has sought to put are accepted, though from what the Prime Minister said about the Kariba Dam they are not.
The question that we have to ask ourselves is, is it really practicable? Will we in fact be able to interpose a barrier of this kind? Suppose an offer is accepted. Suppose we send an R.A.F. squadron and a detachment of the Royal Air Force Régiment. What will happen in a month from now? The appeasement of Afro-Asian opinion is like a descending path. It is all very simple and easy at the beginning, but as one goes on, it becomes narrower. There are boulders and thorns in the way, it get steeper, and fairly soon one finds oneself on the edge of the abyss.
What will happen if, in a month from now, the same pressures are exerted on President Kaunda as were exerted earlier this week? What will happen if his extremists at home, and his Afro-Asian friends outside, say, "The R.A.F. Régiment is not doing much about Rhodesia. We want to send our troops to Zambia to help"? What will President Kaunda do then? Will he come and ask us for more troops? If he does, what will we do? Will we reinforce the forces we have already sent there? If we do, how far do we take this argument? To what extent do we say that the right thing to do is always to have British forces there to keep things under control? If the United Nations try to take charge and say that there must be an invasion of Rhodesia, do we say that it is better that we should undertake it? If there is to be shooting, do we say that it is better for Rhodesians to be shot with British bullets?

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Several times during his speech my right hon. Friend has referred to the possibility of British troops invading Rhodesia.

May I ask whether he accepts the proposition that at the moment Rhodesia is still one of Her Majesty's dominions? If he does, how is it possible to regard British troops moving into Rhodesia as an invasion?

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend has raised a fundamental point, and with his great knowledge of history he will recall the dilemma which confronted officers in the British Army over the Ulster problem in 1914. He will remember what many gallant officers, for whom I am sure he has great respect and regard, felt about it at the time, and how this country was nearly brought to the verge of civil war. I do not wish to see this happen again. My hon. Friend may say that technically it would not be an invasion, but he knows as well as I do that, de facto, it would be. All the signs are that it would be ourselves who invaded, and I do not wish to see a situation brought about in which British troops are caused to fight and fire upon other British troops.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Sir John Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate) rose——

Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend will forgive my not giving way he will probably be speaking in a moment.
I cannot find it in me to condemn the Prime Minister's decision to try to support President Kaunda, except for his statement that British troops might be used to seize the Kariba Dam. But it must be realised that what the Government are proposing—if their offer is accepted by President Kaunda—is a widening of the breach, and an increasing of the tension. If British troops are to be admitted to Zambia this might provide a precedent for a closer involvement between South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and Portugal in their military arrangements.

Mr. Paget: Surely the point is that there is only one airfield in Zambia which could possibly be used for a military build-up. If we occupy that it seems to be a very good answer to anybody else's coming in.

Mr. Amery: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is very well informed on these matters. I understood that there were three airfields which could be used for this purpose, but


I would not wish to cross swords with him. If President Kaunda accepts the Government's offer, although we shall secure a certain breathing space it will not last for very long. Pressure from the United Nations and the Afro-Asians will mount again quite soon, and further measures will be called for, so it is very important that if the Government succeed in gaining time they should make the best use of it. When we spoke on these matters three weeks ago I urged that we should gain as much time as possible. My feeling today is that we should make use as quickly as we can of any time gained in order to reach a settlement with the Rhodesians before things go very much further. [HON. MEMBERS: "What Rhodesians?"] With the de facto authorities in Rhodesia.
What will be the basis of any settlement? It would not be practicable to think in terms of unconditional surrender. Nor do I think that most hon. Members, on either side of the House, would wish to see the unconditional surrender of the de facto authorities in Salisbury. Nor—much as I would like us to be able to do so—can we go back to 1961. In history nothing is more difficult than to go back. We cannot talk about resuming our colonial rôle because we have never exercised it in Rhodesia. If British troops go to Zambia now it will be the first time in history that British troops have been to Zambia or to Southern Rhodesia, with the exception of a few fugitives who escaped from Tanganyika during the First World War.
Nor will it be practicable to undo the declaration of independence. We cannot get the de facto authorities in Rhodesia to go back upon this. The task is to bring the Rhodesians, by diplomatic means, to take steps which would justify not the approval of this House but the recognition of this House of facts as they are. Can we bring them to an acceptance of the five principles? I am not sure. But I am pretty sure that with an effort we can prevent an extension of apartheid in Rhodesia.
In spite of the strong measures that they announced this afternoon there are signs that the Government are thinking again. Their decision to continue to support the Salisbury University and their talk about a Parliamentary delegation are the right kind of measures to pursue—

these and not sanctions. We must seek to end the rebellion by agreement between both sides—not by coercion but by conciliation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) has very strong views on this matter. This is the place where those views should be expressed. Nevertheless, I very much regret his reference to the Curragh Camp incident 50 years ago. Differences of opinion undoubtedly exist in this country about this issue, but in my experience in my constituency and in other parts of the country there is not the slightest doubt that most of our people are behind the Government, as are the vast majority of the Opposition at this time.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: As my right hon. Friend did not give way to me and the hon. Member has been courteous enough to do so, I should like to say now what I was going to say to my right hon. Friend about the Curragh incident. I was going to ask my right hon. Friend whether the same sentiments did not apply to our kith and kin in Rhodesia who have sworn loyalty to the Queen if they are ordered to take up arms against British troops.

Mr. Rees: I fully agree with the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir John Vaughan-Morgan) on that point.
I now turn to another question. Undoubtedly, as the economic sanctions and other measures take effect at some pitch or other there will have to be discussions, but the reference by the right hon. Member for Preston, North to a recognition of the de facto Government, and of independence, is something which I am confident is not accepted by the vast majority of public opinion in this country.
I now want to deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). Among the many incredible arguments put forward by him was one that up to about three weeks ago, when U.D.I. took place, the alternative for the Smith régime was majority rule or U.D.I. This was not the case on that occasion. There was room for manoeuvre, and it will be to the detriment of the world as a whole that U.D.I. was taken despite


all the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Further, the hon. Member for Yarmouth and the right hon. Member for Preston, North chose to see the sending of troops to Zambia as an indication of the weakness of President Kaunda's Government. Although there may be elements of truth in this, in a new State such as Zambia there are wider questions which all the people in this country should accept. We can no longer forget—whatever hon. Members like the hon. Member for Yarmouth feel about it—that there is a world public opinion in the United Nations, and that at this moment we are at the bar of this world public opinion. We must give consideration to this fact.
Two or three weeks ago, in terms of U.D.I., I received a reference comparing it to Sarajevo. This would not be out of place again now. Big social movements are afoot in this world and we must keep abreast of them and in contact with them. This is why I support wholeheartedly the policy of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government. What gives me even more courage is that they receive the support of both sides of the House, which is extremely important at this time. If this House splits on this issue in a big way it could mean the end of the British Commonwealth of Nations as it has developed in recent years.
I now turn to the wording of the Motion, and to a matter referred to by the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke). As a relatively new Member I hope that I shall not be thought pompous if I say that the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman was statesmanlike and that it happily belied to some extent the image which unfortunately built up about him in recent years. I sincerely do not mean that unkindly, because on another issue in this House in recent months he has shown the same basic statesmanship.
The Motion refers to
the repeated expressions and acts of loyalty to the Sovereign by Rhodesian Governments.
I should like to emphasise that this is not loyalty. The loyalty which is expressed by the present Rhodesian Government is the sort of loyalty which one gets in women's magazines. It is the loyalty

to a "Crawfie image". It does not comprehend the essential strength of the Crown in this country: it treats the Crown as if the Queen were something of an African Indaba. I regret this wording in the Motion. The loyalty of the Southern Rhodesians is not to the Crown but to themselves and to many of their very reactionary opinions.
The reason I want to speak this evening is to say something about the future. It is very easy for us at the moment—quite correctly—to be concerned with the nature of troops in Zambia and the purposes for which they are there. Because of the economic sanctions and in other ways, it will not be long—it may be only months—before all of us will have again to think about the future of the multiracial society in this part of Africa. I want to refer first of all to racial discrimination in this part of the world and then to education and the need to do something about it.
The attitude of white people to Africans in Southern Rhodesia is something which we in this country find it difficult to understand. Only the other day, a representative of the Rhodesia Government in this country—at least, from their office in London—spoke at Oxford. I repeat this not with any joy but because it reveals an attitude and shows the difficulties we have to overcome. It shows also the reason for the support which the Smith régime enjoys from a certain type of person in Rhodesia. He said that the Africans in Rhodesia breed like rabbits and added, "… with due apologies to rabbits."
That anybody could possibly talk in this way in the twentieth century is incredible. There are undertones of this sort of remark in comments by the rebel Government in Rhodesia concerning the weaknesses of the Kaunda régime, such as, "These people cannot govern themselves: they are inferior people and it is only the white people who know how to govern". The history of the last 50 years in Europe shows that this is not so. White people make mistakes as much as black people. We should run a society in that part of Africa which will give all races a chance to work together.
The question is, how to deal with this. We should be deluding ourselves if we did not realise the strong racial feelings


in this part of the world. It will not be solved by economic or military sanctions, much as I support them. There is no way out of these; it must be done. But when the shouting is over, we shall have to do something about this society in Central Africa. The only hope for the multi-racial society is to do something about education. Figures have been given about the number of black people who receive primary education and figures are bandied about comparing that with other parts of Africa.
The plain fact is that there is not scope in this part of Africa at the moment for the emergence of black Africans to take over the Government of that country, to participate in the industry and commerce of their country. I have not been to this part of Africa, but I am told of the demarcation between white people in the central area of Salisbury and the shanty townships on the outskirts. The Prime Minister said in his recent television speech:
We have made proposals for an interim period of working under the existing constitution, through which Africans would be taken into multi-racial Government, trained as junior Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and so on.
He went on to refer to a dynamic programme for education and training of teachers.
This is excellent, but what I ask for is that the Government at the moment should remember amid the immediate issues that the contingency educational plans should be made at the moment so that they can be undertaken at the shortest possible notice. This applies not just to academic education, although this is vital to a large degree. In the last 50 years, we have considered academic education, particularly university education, in Africa as a whole, at the expense of industrial training. We must do far more to train Africans not just to take their part in Government—important though this is—but to raise the economic and social status of their people in that society.
In this country now, there are industrial training boards for the major industries, colleges of advanced technology and other institutions. We should at this moment bring in the people who work in these institutions into this Rhodesian picture. We must bring in the industrialists, the trade unions—I know that many

trade unions already play a part in this respect—specifically, now in Southern Rhodesia.
I think, also, that we ought to give some thought to the education of white people in this part of Africa. What has happened is that so many of the schools and colleges which have developed in Rhodesia are aping or believe that they are aping what might be regarded as some of the better educational institutions in this country. However, in the aping, in the brightly coloured blazers, they are not getting the essence of our excellent institutions. They are copying the worst elements—the snobbishness and all that goes with it.
The quality of General Certificate of Education examinations, the quality of training needed in the circumstances of that country—I do not mean at the new multi-racial university—must be looked at. Concentration on black education to the exclusion of white education will lead again to this racial discrimination.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In dealing with this point, which is a valuable one, I hope that my hon. Friend will not allow the fact to be overlooked that the so-called Rhodesian Government in the last year spent £10 per head per African pupil and £104 per head per white pupil. There is no doubt that this is one of the major considerations in education, and perhaps my hon. Friend will want to refer to it in this part of his speech.

Mr. Rees: This is, of course, true. Of course, more needs to he done and there is a great difference between the two types. I was seeking to do two things: first of all, to deal with the content of African education and to maintain that it should be better, and secondly, to point out that we are forgetting the content of white education.
Lastly, there has been a great deal of discussion in this country over the last twenty years—some of it not without electoral signficance—about the development of a new lower-middle-class in this country. It has arisen out of the structural changes in industry and commerce. Large numbers of people in this category have moved to Rhodesia. In Rhodesia at the moment—because of these large numbers who have moved there since the war—the subtopians from England have come face to face with African


nationalism and have been found wanting. It is not only the people who have gone there who are found wanting: it is we in this country as well.
There are large numbers of people in this country who, if faced with racial problems which they do not comprehend, would behave in the same stupid way. We are suffering not just a racial problem in Rhodesia: there is a racial problem here as well, underlying this whole matter.
We in this House can show, as I believe we have done, with very few exceptions, that we understand this. We can talk about our kith and kin, we can argue, as we have done, that we are all in this together, but we have come to a point as dangerous as that reached at the time of Sarajevo. A moral issue is involved in Rhodesia. We cannot ignore this or sweep it under the carpet. We have at long last to face up to it. There is only one way to get it right in Rhodesia and that is to declare that the Smith Government in its present form is illegal and must end. But one day we must talk.

6.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage. I do not propose to make a long speech, because other hon. Members wish to speak. I regret to say that I think that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) made one of the most reactionary speeches it has ever been my misfortune to listen to during my membership of this House. It was a depressing speech—[An HON. MEMBER: "So is the present situation."] The hon. Member sees no value in the United Nations. He sees no value in a multi-racial Commonwealth. These are two world organisations in which mankind, in all its diversity, pins its faith.

Mr. Fell: Mr. Fell rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Yarmouth was particularly ungenerous in giving way to interventions but I will give way to him later on. If these organisations fail, if the Smith régime succeeds, if the hon. Member's philosophy

prevails, there is very little hope for the future.

Mr. Fell: The hon. Member said that I had said that I had no faith in the future of a multi-racial Commonwealth. I was merely referring to what the Prime Minister said three or four days ago. Of course I have no faith in the future of a multi-racial Commonwealth if it is based on unsound principles.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member made a long speech, and the House must judge the sense of what he said. I do not think that there can be any doubt about his views on the United Nations or the Commonwealth.
His Motion suggests that the measures which we are taking to restore constitutional government in Rhodesia will represent danger to Central Africa. If the population of Central Africa is in jeopardy today this is a direct result of the illegal action of the Smith régime. This was action taken with one thing in mind—the indefinite entrenchment of white supremacy in Rhodesia. This is the irresponsible action which has heightened tension throughout Africa. Pressures are rising for us to take firm action. This is the direct result of the rebellious act of the Smith régime.
In considering the perils which Smith and his colleagues have created in Central Africa, we must consider the hundreds of thousands of United Kingdom citizens and Europeans who live in other parts of Africa. None of us in the House can be sanguine about either their safety or their jobs if Africa becomes racially inflamed because of the seizure of power by the white minority in Rhodesia. I know that this is causing deep concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know from conversations that hon. Members have heard from British people who are living in countries to the North of Rhodesia and that many of them have appealed for the British Government to take strong and decisive action. They believe that the consequence of not doing so would be to put their future in these African countries in jeopardy.
Both in Kenya and in Tanzania Europeans have expressed their concern about the Rhodesian crisis. A letter was published a few days ago from a number of


prominent European citizens in Kenya. They made no attempt to suggest that Europeans in Kenya enjoyed a Utopian life. They were quite honest in the views which they expressed in that letter. May I quote a short paragraph from it:
The Kenya Government has succeeded in face of enormous difficulties in creating a genuine feeling of stability and an atmosphere in which every man, whatever the colour of his skin, feels free to get on with his job, to earn his living and to bring up his family in peace.
Are we to jeopardise by our inaction the possibility of Europeans all over Africa —and there are as many of them outside Rhodesia as there are in Rhodesia—living in harmony with their African neighbours.
The hon. Member referred to the economy of Rhodesia. We all acknowledge readily the efforts of all races in Rhodesia in building up a successful economy there. I say "all races in Rhodesia" because they have contributed to Rhodesia's development, the European in the provision of capital and "know-how" and the African throughout the centuries in hard work and labour. This has been a muti-racial effort in Rhodesia.
It is not the United Kingdom which has sought to destroy what the hon. Members calls a thriving economy. It is Mr. Smith and his colleagues who by their action have raised in people's minds the question whether in present conditions Rhodesia remains a place where one can guarantee with any assurance that development will go on. It is Mr. Smith who is responsible for the threat to Rhodesia's thriving economy. The Zambian economy, too, has been thriving. Zambia is now threatened with economic destruction as a result of the illegal declaration of independence. Throughout Central Africa, and indeed throughout the world, there is general support for our action. Many wish us to go further. No one has applauded the rebels except themselves, the hon. Member and a few others.
We have heard a good deal about Western Christian civilisation and its preservation by the Smith régime. It is a strange thing that all the Churches in Rhodesia, without exception, have opposed his régime. As a Churchman, I tremendously admire the courageous

stand made by the Churches of Rhodesia against the illegal act which has been committed there.
We have acceped and we will discharge the responsibility for bringing this rebellion to an end. What is the alternative which the hon. Member for Yarmouth has in mind? Does he expect the British Government to accept this as a fait accompli? The world will not accept it. This rebellion cannot succeed, and the sooner the illegal régime ceases to exist the better for Rhodesia.
The Motion refers to
repeated expressions and acts of loyalty".
The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), in his impressive speech, referred to this. Indeed, this was so in the past. Successive British Governments have acknowledged the debt which we owe to Rhodesians, both black and white, who stood with us and the Commonwealth in two world wars. In her message of 10th November the Queen acknowledged with gratitude the assurances of loyalty to the Crown expressed by the then Prime Minister of Rhodesia and other Ministers. She went on to speak of her confidence that they would demonstrate their loyalty by continuing to act in a constitutional manner. Within 24 hours these men had committed a supreme act of disloyalty. This is the reality of the situation in Rhodesia when the hon. Member for Yarmouth speaks of loyalty.
What is wanted is not these spurious expressions of loyalty which are emanating from the régime but a corporate act of loyalty which would return Rhodesia to constitutional Government. In this the rebels could do no better than follow the admirable example set by the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, who is still at his post in difficult circumstances. I am sure that the House will once again join me in repeating our admiration for the stand which he has taken for loyalty and for constitutional government in Rhodesia. The hon. Member's Motion refers to the "constitutionally elected Smith régime". Originally they were constitutionally elected as Members of Parliament. No one disputes that. But they have also been constitutionally dismissed for unconstitutional action. There can be no question of that. I take it that the hon. Member accepts that.

Mr. Fell: No. The hon. Member is very kind to give way to me, but he asked me a question. Of course I do not accept any such thing. The Governor is not governing Rhodesia. The Smith régime is, whether the hon. Member likes it or not. As the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the de facto Government in charge of the Kariba dam is the Smith régime. It is the illegal régime, and the legal Government of Rhodesia now is Sir Humphrey Gibbs, the Governor. There is no question about that.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Yarmouth asks us in his Motion to reconsider our whole policy on Rhodesia, and in particular the policy of sanctions. No one on either side of the House enjoys imposing sanctions on Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained to the House that the purpose of the economic measures which we have felt compelled to take is not to destroy the Rhodesian economy but to do the minimum of long-term damage while ensuring that Rhodesia returns to the path of law and order with the minimum of delay.
In this process there are some who have shown concern about the African population of Rhodesia in the context of our economic measures. Of course, we all regret the effect on loyal Rhodesians, African and European, of these economic measures, but we believe that there is no evidence to suggest that they wish Britain to stand aside while Mr. Smith entrenches his régime. Genuine concern for the long-term interests of Rhodesia should lead one to advocate quicker and sharper action to bring the rebel régime to an end.

Mr. Paget: One point has particularly interested me. How is an embargo on receiving Rhodesian exports going to be a quick and sharp thing? I should have thought that such a method of depressing the economy could become effective only over a period of years.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend has obviously given a great deal of thought to this problem. I am sure that if he will consider that point in the context of the measures which we are taking he will see why we believe that they will be effective. These measures are certainly not vindictive. As my right

hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 12th November:
Every measure has to be judged and must be judged against its ability to restore the rule of law and the functioning of a democratic constitution in Rhodesia.
Her Majesty's Government are determined to do what is necessary to achieve this end and, as the House knows, our measures are kept under constant review.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today outlined certain further measures which have been put in force. I do not propose to discuss in any detail the Government's decision to assist in the defence of Zambia. This has already been discussed and my right hon. Friend has answered a series of questions on the subject. I would further remind the House that units are being sent to Zambia at the express request of the head of a friendly Commonwealth Government. I am sure that all hon. Members will acknowledge our admiration for the progress which Zambia has made since here independence and will understand the Government's desire to assist at this time of great anxiety for Zambia.
The right hon. Member for Hampstead made a number of helpful suggestions and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) also referred to the need for educational advance in Rhodesia. This is indeed a matter which we have very much in mind. The House will recall that, when he visited Rhodesia in September, my right hon. Friend took with him the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development to see what could be done to raise the educational standards there and to show our appreciation of the importance of this matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I think the hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue a moment ago which I suggest it is important that he clears up straight away. He said that troops are being sent. I thought that, as matters stand at present, a final decision on whether or not to send them has not yet been taken.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. What he says is the case. The units which are at present under consideration, I should have said, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary will by now have commenced his discussions with President Kaunda in the terms


which were outlined by the Prime Minister when he made his statement this afternoon. As to our policies generally, these are clear. We believe that they are honourable policies and that they are in the long-term interest of the people of Rhodesia.
A number of hon. Members have asked about the long-term attitude of the Government towards the final solution of this problem. They were well summed up by the Prime Minister on 23rd November and are worth repeating. I hope that they will be repeated in Rhodesia so that all European Rhodesians may pay heed to them, for my right hon. Friend said:
… as soon as the people of Rhodesia are prepared to return to constitutional paths, as soon as the Governor feels that there is an opportunity of, perhaps, forming a Government among those who will act in a constitutional manner, we would want to deal with those people, without any recrimination or any rancour about the past, on the basis of a resettlement in Rhodesia. starting from the 1961 Constitution with such amendments as, I think, the whole House would agree to be necessary to give effect to the five principles, leading up, I would hope, as quickly as possible to free elections in Rhodesia and then a discussion as to how we can give effect to the question of gradual and unimpeded progress to majority rule."—[OFFIcIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 258/9.]
The purpose of Her Majesty's Government's policy, therefore, is to bring about conditions which will enable Rhodesia to go forward to legal independence, surely an objective on which the whole House must be united. We must not at this stage be deflected by a small minority, unrepresentative of opinion in this country, who apparently wish to see the Crown, the Government and this House flouted in circumstances which would place Rhodesia in dire danger. The rebel régime have, by their illegal acts, prejudiced the future of all in Rhodesia. It is their acts and policies which threaten to destroy the thriving economy of Central Africa.
The hon. Member for Yarmouth asks us in his Motion to reconsider our Rhodesian policy. I submit that what is being requested is that we should abandon our aim of returning Rhodesia to the rule of law. This would really mean—and I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind—abandoning 4 million

Africans and a substantial number of moderate Europeans in Rhodesia, as well as prejudicing the future of those Europeans who live in countries in Africa outside Rhodesia.
Above all, if we were to abandon our policy it would mean that we would risk abandoning the Commonwealth as well. It has been the policy of successive British Governments to do all in their power to build up a multi-racial Commonwealth, and I believe that this has been and remains a noble ideal which is shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
I ask the, hon. Member for Yarmouth to tell the House whether he wants us to abandon the Commonwealth and to flout world opinion because, make no mistake about this, if Britain does not act decisively now Commonwealth and world opinion will reach its own opinions about the state of our nation and our Parliament.
The House should, therefore, do nothing which would bring comfort to those who have rebelled against the Crown and who have offended the great mass of mankind by their unconstitutional action, and the abhorrent measures which they have taken in Rhodesia to sustain it. We therefore ask the House to support the Government in their action to restore the rule of law and the stability of the area and to nut Rhodesia once more on truly democratic paths. This, we trust, will not be long delayed, and we hope that we will find a solution which is acceptable to all races and which we could with honour and confidence recommend to the House.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: One of the most significant passages in the Minister's speech was that in which he quoted from a letter written by Europeans in Kenya. I think he will agree, from his knowledge of some of the signatories to that letter, that it was not a letter signed by radical progressives but by many people who utttered sentiments similar to those which we heard from the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) in the days before Kenya was granted independence and who foresaw nothing but doom if Her Majesty's Government handed over independence. That people who felt that


way have now taken it upon themselves to try to assuage European fears in Rhodesia is the significance of this missive.
Though most of us would disagree with what he said, the hon. Member for Yarmouth spoke with his own conviction and gave vent to his feelings. He talked of the witchcraft, the diseases and the deserts of 1894. He paid tribute to the work of the European population in bringing forward the standard of living of the indigenous people all over Africa, and in Rhodesia in particular. That may be so, but it does not in itself grant them a right to hold up the political progress of the indigenous peoples. The Europeans who went to Africa were prompted by very mixed motives. They were not always 100 per cent. motivated by altruism. In many, altruism was a very high factor, but in others it was not so high. Many of them made a great deal of money, and many of them made a lot of money for this country.
When the history of British colonial rule in Africa is written it will be an honourable history only as far as we allow the tale to go full circle, and show that while we are prepared to pay tribute to what has been done in such countrires as Rhodesia by the European population we have been willing to hand it over to the indigenous peoples, while those Europeans who wish to stay could do so under a democratic Government and in a multi-racial community.
I did not share in the adulation of a former Prime Minister with his "wind of change" speech, because it seemed to me that the wind of change was merely a belated recognition of the inevitable and not a timely encouragement of the desirable. An interesting feature of this debate is that those who, like the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and the hon. Member for Yarmouth, have been most insistent in supporting in one way or another what is now happening in Rhodesia, are often the same people who are prepared to see in every democratic movement in Africa some form of Communist subversion.
The people who are encouraging any Communist subversion in Africa are those of the type of Mr. Smith and his sympathisers here, because if the people of

this country are not prepared to take steps they believe in there are other countries that will willingly say, "We will hold out the hand of friendship and help because of certain principles" If that view were taken, we would be helping to push suppressed people into the influence of whatever persuasion might come from Communist sources.
In this discussion of the Rhodesian situation generally, there has been much reference to what happened in the Congo. I think that the lesson to be learned from the Congo tragedy is that there we had a colonial Power which abrogated its responsibilities and failed to bring forward the education and development of the people. It then pulled out, leaving a country incapable of governing itself in an orderly manner. If we are to look for other Congos, I suggest that we have to look at places like Rhodesia with a Smith type of Government, where 77 qualified Africans were refused admission to the administrative grade of the Civil Service last year. That is a complete reversal of previous policy, even under Sir Edgar Whitehead.
We would look for a potential Congo situation in a country under a Smith type of Government, where the introduction of fee-paying to the schools achieved a slowing down in the development of African education and a tendency towards segregation because, obviously, only one section of the population can afford the fees. It is this kind of action, this suppression of democratic rights of the indigenous population, that could lead to a possible Congo explosion.
It should be noted that British Governments of both parties have asked the Smith régime to accept steady progress to majority rule. That was asked of Mr. Smith before the days of the U.D.I. It was not a case of Scylla and Charybdis, as the hon. Member for Yarmouth tried to make out. It was not a question of a straight choice of "one man, one vote tomorrow" or U.D.I. That was not the choice presented to Mr. Smith.
A point that concerns me greatly is the Government's determination to pursue a bi-partisan policy on Rhodesia. I understand the natural desire for such a policy, but a bipartisan policy is not necessarily virtuous of itself; it is only virtuous if it is also the right policy. I


sometimes suspect that in overemphasising the need to achieve a bi-partisan policy the Government have not been as firm as they might have been. While not underestimating the difficulties there are with a small minority in the Conservative Party, I was astonished by the reaction of the right hon. Members for Bexley (Mr. Heath) and for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) to the Prime Minister's statement today about the conceivable situation in which force might be used to maintain power supplies to Zambia. There are real dangers of over-emphasising a bipartisan policy as opposed to a right policy.
The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) spoke of control over the Kariba power works. The Prime Minister's statement was very moderate and reasonable, and not the extreme statement it has been made out to be by some hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Motion. The Kariba scheme was an international project, the British taxpayer contributed largely to it. Much more important is the fact that control over these works was vested jointly in Rhodesia and Zambia by an Order in Council. We still have the power to legislate for Rhodesia in external affairs, and it would be quite possible for this Parliament by Order in Council to revest control over the Kariba power works jointly in Zambia and this country. It would be quite possible and quite constitutional for us to take control there. The Prime Minister has not gone as far as this, and it is quite wrong to speak as though his statement today was terribly extreme and dramatic. Other possibilities are still open to us.
One of the most maligned people in this country in recent months has been the Archbishop of Canterbury, but what he indicated to the British public, through the British Council of Churches, was that fundamentally—and I agree here with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees)—this is not a matter of narrow political discussion but one of the greatest moral issues that has confronted this country for many years.
We must take a very firm stand in bringing down the Smith régime. I would very much regret it if we were seen to move from one step to the next merely at the behest of other countries, of the

United Nations or of Afro-Asian opinion within the Commonwealth. That would be taking a weak stand. The British Government should be taking policies that we believe to be right; not because of what other people might say or do, but because we believe a stand must be made. The right hon. Member for Preston, North referred to appeasement of Afro-Asian opinion, and I thought that to be an extraordinary phrase. What we have to do is to see that the rule of law is maintained. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party has said, it is no argument to say that one must not enforce the law because the lawbreaker is one's cousin.
We are confronted with a broad spectrum of world opinion and opinion in this country which wants to see us take powers to bring down the Smith régime. The hon. Member for Yarmouth would be doing the House a great service tonight by taking this Motion to a Division in order that we can show quite clearly for the first time that the vast majority of hon. Members of all shades of political opinion are determined that this régime shall not be allowed to get away with it.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: I have listened throughout the debate with the greatest interest, especially to the speech by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). If I had to contrast the two speeches which seemed to take the most extreme views, I would contrast the speech of the hon. Member for Yarmouth with the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston——

Mr. Peter Mahon: Will my hon. Friend please make a distinction and not speak of "the right hon. Member for Preston" when he is, in fact, referring to the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery)?

Mr. Norwood: My apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). Yes, there should be no confusion between the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Amery) and my hon. Friend. I referred, of course, to the right hon. Member for Preston, North.
Of the two speeches, I greatly preferred the lengthy, confused, illogical and


often unfair speech of the hon. Member for Yarmouth because, if we consider the more sophisticated arguments of the right hon. Member for Preston, North—I apologise for replying to those arguments—I am quite satisfied that what the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said is true, that inside this House they command very little support, but outside this House they might be listened to. The danger of those arguments is that some people, perhaps not with the sophistication, the wisdom or the knowledge of this House, will listen to some of those arguments which spoke about disorder in Central Africa. They might listen to legalistic prevarications about whether protecting the Kariba Dam is an aggression or not.
The danger is not that the right hon. Member for Preston, North or the hon. Member for Yarmouth might carry the House with them. I doubt whether they have the courage to carry this matter to a vote. It is curious that the right hon. Member who objects to appeasing the Afro-Asian majority in the world will apparently be only too happy with his hon. Friend to appease the majority in this House. It is because this case might be believed outside this House that we have to look at it for what it is worth.
What was the case raised by the mover of this Motion? It was, in effect, that African people are unfit to govern themselves and that there has been disorder all over Africa. The hon. Member asked if people living in the Congo were content with their situation. It was a rhetorical question and the answer is simple, but we have to ask ourselves whether the people living in Rhodesia can be content with their situation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Yarmouth will be unlucky if he attempts to interrupt me because twice he refused to give way to me when he was speaking, and I see no reason why I should be more generous to him.
Is it true to say that 4 million people, deprived of all political reality, with their leaders in prison camps isolated at vast distances, and with allegations that some of them are badly treated and completely denied political rights, are in a favourable situation? Would it be right to argue, as the right hon. Member for

Preston, North argued, that we should acquiesce in the denial of their rights? He said that we must not appease Afro-Asia opinion. Mark not that it represents two-thirds of the world's population and that the largest democracy in the world is a coloured democracy. He said that we must reach a basic settlement. The basic settlement is to accept the de facto Government as he called it, the de facto power. The basic settlement is to refuse to regard the rights of 4 million people because they are coloured, and to regard only the rights, if they can be called such, of 200,000 people who enjoy a privileged economic situation.
The fact that the 200,000 men and women of European extraction in Southern Rhodesia enjoy a privileged economic situation is of some importance, but not of critical importance. The fact of vital importance is that they, and they alone, have effective political rights in that community. Is it not hypocrisy in this House to describe that as a constitutionally elected régime? We do not deny the legal nicety. The Minister himself pointed it out, but can anyone in this House honestly argue that it is a régime freely elected, when it has been elected by only 200,000, or fewer, out of a total population of about 4¼ million?

Mr. Fell: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Norwood: I am quite prepared to forgive the hon. Member, but not to give way to him.
We had another surprising assertion from the right hon. Member for Preston, North, that broadcasting—I took the word down—was an aggression. That was an extraordinary word with which to describe the broadcasting of information and news to people in a State, which incidentally has absolute control over its own internal broadcasting system and denies it information from outside. It was extraordinary to accuse the official organs of official Government broadcasting of aggression. We cannot accuse our broadcasting organisation of being subversive and likely to cause aggression in Southern Rhodesia.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member is hardly being fair in that last assertion. I do not want to take up either side, but my right hon. Friend has made


it perfectly clear that in this instance the broadcasts sent to that country were asking people to go on strike, to demolish buildings and so on.

Mr. Norwood: We again come back to the point that people will not face reality. We have a sort of evasion and a false distinction. The point is that if we object to broadcasting we should say so, but there is no earthly reason why there should not be broadcasting into Southern Rhodesia.
The great thing about the case which has been made this afternoon is that if this matter should go to a Division it will not have been fairly pressed and the issue will not have been fairly put. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles put the issue squarely. He stated an issue which I commend to the House. I have no wish to speak for more than a few minutes, but beyond all the arguments about the type of negotiations which are possible and beyond all the comments about the sort of disorder which can happen in Central Africa, someone asked during the debate, "Who are we, living in a so-called civilised nation in Europe, to talk about 1,000 deaths in Africa when one nation of Europe has been responsible for 20 million deaths during my lifetime?"
Who are we to talk about the civilised nations of Europe if we turn our backs on what happens in Africa, such as the Sharpeville massacre and the fact that a large number of people are held in detention without trial? What other path is open to Southern Rhodesia but to follow such a course unless at some time they come to terms with the British Government and the need for African advancement, which so far they have resolutely failed to do?
There is a moral issue here. I could not be in greater agreement about it. This House does not sufficiently shout the moral issue, because we fail to face the fact that ultimately there is only one way of regarding one man against another. It is that we are approximately equal—not the same, but approximately equal. But because we engage in a debate of this kind, and hon. Members opposite fail to press it to a Division, we shall give a misleading impression all over Africa and in the world in which we have to live, which is not a European world.
We will give this misleading impression if at any time we fail to maintain what I think it is the wish of the House to maintain—a common united constitutional front in support of the British Government, as they now are, in conducting a policy which I suspect is very much like that which the Opposition Front Bench might pursue if they were in power. We should stand together in this, in order to make it possible, as the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) said, to ease the difficulties of constitutional and loyal Rhodesians and so make it possible for a settlement to be reached which offers the prospect of African advance.

6.51 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I shall probably be the last speaker in this debate and probably also the last of those who have spoken today to have been in Rhodesia, as I was there at the beginning of September. It is ten weeks since I was there and spent an evening with that great Rhodesian, Sir Humphrey Gibbs. The views which I heard from him and his very wise prognostications of what was going to happen, and happen to him in particular, have very much influenced my views.
I would say to the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) that I am fairly certain that the whole mass of my party is as zealous for national unity as he is, but we must still reserve the right to ourselves to comment on and to criticise every action of the Government and indeed every word, for those words can mean much outside this House and they can be misinterpreted. My criticism of what the Prime Minister was saying today is that in the connotation of sending troops to Zambia, which I support, it would have been wiser to have omitted part of his references to another eventuality. I say that in as uncontentious a manner as I can. Those of us who are in the middle of the road on these occasions are always in great danger of being run down by the traffic going in both directions.
There are two points which I will raise if time allows. The first is the subject which my right hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) raised —the possibility of reopening negotiations. I hope that I have shown that I am not unsympathetic to what has been


done when I draw attention—and I agree with much of what he said—to the admirable letter from Lord Salter published in The Times on Monday. We do not want to be too squeamish as to whom we first have conversation with out there. I support the Prime Minister in any effort he may seek to make to send a Parliamentary mission there. I remind the House—and I do not pursue the analogy too far for obvious reasons—of the first clandestine conversations opened with Michael Collins which led the way to an honourable settlement in Ireland. I will not pursue that analogy too far because that was followed by the assassination of Michael Collins and by civil war; but we must talk some time with somebody and we must not lose any opportunity of bringing this miserable chapter to a close, but it must be on honourable terms.
I want to say something about sanctions and their application. There is a whole gamut of opinion in the House and outside, ranging from those who would do nothing about U.D.I. to those who, as the saying goes, would "throw the book" at the Rhodesians. There are some extremists who would throw not only the book but the bookcase as well. I support the Government's pragmatic approach of throwing, first, chapter one, followed by chapter two, and working their way through the volume only as it becomes necessary so to do.
I believe from my knowledge of Rhodesia—and I have been there six times in 12 years—that the measures so far applied are going to bite far sooner than some people realise. Everyone talks in terms of bringing the economy into a state of chaos. It will not be a sudden crash. There will be a slide, and somewhere along that slide, in my view, European opinion in Rhodesia will begin to change, because this is a very frail European economy. I accept, and with regret, that there will be more Africans who will suffer than Europeans, but there is this difference between the Africans and the Europeans—it is the difference between falling from a high building and falling from a low height. The African has not much of a belt to tighten; the European has. And the European cannot in Rhodesia face unemployment, and unemployment that is without benefit.
The result must be a migration out of Rhodesia to the Republic of South Africa and perhaps back to this country. I, for one, believe that when they have gone we shall find a lot of people left of what I dare to call the old Rhodesians —people who are in the true Rhodesian tradition—and we shall once again find that old country which was not always as liberal as it ought to have been, I agree, but which had a great deal of achievement to its credit—and that is sometimes forgotten. It is all very well to contrast the difference between the expenditure on African and on European education. We know that there has not been enough——

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: We know that there has not been enough African education, but I have not heard anybody yet suggest that this was a strong argument for reducing the standard of European education.
Despite everything that has been said, I feel that we can be fairly optimistic that the present mood will change. I realise that the inevitable has happened following Mr. Smith's declaration of independence. There is a curious feeling of elation amongst Europeans—what has been described as the Dunkirk spirit of feeling that they are alone. This matches very much what I thought would happen and was told would happen, and that is that U.D.I. happened not only because Mr. Smith was pushed into declaring independence by his own party but because he was pushed into it by a general public which did not always understand what was going to happen, did not understand the consequences, and, above all, did not realise—because of the failure of the Government in this country to make their terms clear at that stage in September—that it was not a contrast between one man, one vote and independence. The Attorney-General appears to be shaking his head, but I heard Mr. Smith in their own Assembly use these words——

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: The words were,
I have given an undertaking to the British Government that I will not disclose the contents of the negotiations.
I think that that was a tragic mistake on the part of Her Majesty's Government and one of the causes that led to the build-up of opinion behind Mr. Smith.

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government Business).

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to increases or supplements in respect of certain pensions, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Government department under or by virtue of any provision of that Act—

(a) providing for increases of pensions to which section I of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1962 applies and certain other pensions, being increases determined by reference to events, other than the rendering of further service, happening not earlier than the beginning of the pension in question, and not being increases determined by reference to the emoluments or pensions of persons other than the person to or in respect of whom the pension in question is payable;
(b) designed to secure that, where a person to whom a pension has or may become payable renders further service, any pension payable to or in respect of that person after the termination of that further service (with any appropriate increases of that pension) either exceeds or is not less than it would have been if the further service had not been rendered;
(c) enabling benefits in the nature of pension increases to he conferred on persons who are or have been subject to any such superannuation scheme as may he approved for the purpose under the said Act of the present Session;
(d) providing for the payment of increases under sections 1 and 2, and of supplements under section 3, of the said Act of 1962 in respect of additional pensions;
(e) applying or extending for the purposes of the said Act of the present Session any of the provisions of sections 3 to 6 and 7(1) of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1959 and sections 3 and 6 of the said Act of 1962;
and any increase attributable to any such provision as aforesaid of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF CERTAIN PENSIONS)

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, at the end to insert:
(a) if the pension began not later than 1st April 1950 eighteen per cent.
The Bill provides for a scale of increases to public service pensioners ranging up to a maximum of 16 per cent. for all those pensioners who retired on or before 1st April, 1957, but, no matter how many years before that date a public servant may have retired, the percentage increase is limited to 16 per cent. even though, as has been said many times, the further back one goes in time the smaller is the basic pension on which the increase of 16 per cent. falls to be calculated.
It is interesting to look back at the debates on the last Pensions (Increase) Bill and observe that this was one of the main criticisms made at the time by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). The right hon. Gentleman asked rhetorically why the scale in the Bill should be amended as he was seeking to do to top up still further the pensions awarded earlier, and he replied to his own question that those who had been retired the longest had suffered most and for the longest time. We do not pretend by this Amendment to rectify the injustice which has been perpetrated on these older pensioners by successive Governments. All we say is that, if one is to have arbitrary percentage increases on a scale which rises the further back one goes in time, we should not stop at 1957. The figure of 18 per cent. and the associated date of 1950 which appear in this Amendment happen to be identical with the proposals made by the right hon. Member for Sowerby three years ago.
Under the present Bill, some of these older pensioners will, in fact, receive less this time than they did three years ago. I give as an example the case of the postman cited by the right hon. Member for

Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in his Second Reading speech on 9th November, 1962. He showed that the postman who had retired early in 1956, with 40 years' service, and who was then over the age of 70 had a pension of £4 5s. 9d., which was increased to £5 3s. 7d., an increase of 17s. 10d. This time, the postman receives only the bare 16 per cent., and not the additional amount provided as a lump sum for the first time under the 1962 Bill, so that he will receive 7s. 8d. less under this Bill than he received under the Bill three years ago. In this connection, I quote from an interesting letter which the present Prime Minister wrote to a Mr. F. Ainsworth of Southport just before the last election:
Since we feel the position is a positive disgrace, we have persistently brought this up in the House of Commons and criticised the Government for its meanness. We have also called for public service pensions to be linked to some economic indicator so that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices but also receive their full and fair share in rising national prosperity.
I realise that one cannot go as far as that in discussing this Amendment, but I quote that letter to show how far short of the Government's promises at the time of the election the Bill falls.
Returning to the speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby when he proposed an Amendment identical to this on the 1962 Bill, he spent a considerable part of his speech in excusing himself for the anomalies which he said might be created by the Amendment. I do not propose to waste the Committee's time by reading out a whole series of figures, but I point out that we already have pensioners receiving slightly more than their colleagues who retired from the same grade later on, although in no case do they approach the present-day levels which would be applicable to their grades. To take one example, a higher executive officer who retired on 31st March, 1954, receives a pension of £609, whereas the equivalent for a year later is £606. There are other examples of this kind which can be cited. Therefore, although the Amendment may create a few further anomalies of a few pounds, it involves no breach of principle and it is not necessary, therefore, to justify it from that point of view. However, if it were thought necessary to add a stop provision


so that no one would benefit by more than his colleague who retired at a later date, I should be prepared to accept it.
There seems to be a misconception in the Government's mind about the position of these older pensioners. On 18th November last, the Chief Secretary said that, under the previous pensions increase legislation, there had been a levelling up of pensions between 1950 and 1957, and he went on to say:
We, therefore, as it were, got everyone on an equal basis in 1957, which means that it is not necessary to go back beyond that date …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 1355.]
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in that matter, and it is amazing that a responsible Minister should have so flagrantly misled the House. I shall not run through a whole series of figures, but I point out to the Financial Secretary that a clerical officer who retired in 1950 receives £29 less than his colleague who retired in 1957, and, at the other end of the scale, an assistant secretary receives £259 less. In percentage terms, these differences are 6 and 19 per cent. less, respectively. Under the Bill, these percentage differences will remain the same, though in money terms they will actually be wider.
During the Committee stage of the 1962 Bill, the right hon. Member for Sowerby said:
An interval will elapse before a further Bill can be introduced. There could conceivably be a change of Government, in which case I can safely promise that there will certainly be a new initiative in this matter." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1962; Vol. 667, c. 1164–5.]
The new initiative we see is a Bill drafted in precisely the same terms as its Tory predecessor and under which the benefits are very little different.

Mr. Peter Walker: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman should agree that the introduction of the last Pensions (Increase) Bill with its flat rate payments did something to close the differential. But this Bill does nothing.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, I agree. I have referred to the case of the postman cited by the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, pointing out that such pensioners were better off to the tune of about 7s. 8d. under the previous legislation than they

will be this time, and I do not think that the money has necessarily gone to those who need it most. What I was trying to point out in making my quotation from the speech of the right hon. Member for Sowerby was that there has not only been no new initiative, as these proposals are based on percentage increases in a scale which goes backwards in time, but the total amount by which it is proposed to raise pensions is almost precisely the same when one makes adjustments for the change in the index of retail prices since 1962. I have had the opportunity of doing the arithmetic more thoroughly than I could do it while the Chief Secretary was speaking on Second Reading. The difference is between £22·1 million and £22·8 million, so that the total amount of benefit after the adjustment of retail prices is almost precisely the same.
What is the cost of the Amendment? The Financial Secretary gave the total value of the pensions awarded in the Civil Service prior to 30th September, 1950, in a Written Answer on 14th May of this year, as reported in col. 152 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said that, including the pensions paid to widows and dependants, the sum was £11·4 million. If one takes the additional 2 per cent. which I am seeking to give to these pensioners, the upper limit of cost in the Civil Service would be £228,000. But the actual sum would be less than that, because there is the period between 31st March, 1950, and 30th September, 1950, and one has to take into account the fact that, unfortunately, some of these pensioners have died since that Answer was given.
We can agree that this is a miserably small amount in comparison with the expectations which were aroused in the minds of pensioners at the last election. I think that they would have been genuinely amazed if they had then been told that we should be arguing whether to pay a pensioner who retired before 1950 16 per cent. or 18 per cent. more than he was already receiving. Indeed, they would be amazed to know that this Bill is almost identical with its Tory predecessor. There has been no new initiative such as the right hon. Member for Sowerby promised. The Government have even succeeded in gagging us so that no reference to parity may be made later in Committee. I hope that the right hon.


Member for Sowerby and some of his colleagues who have been active in these debates in the past are thoroughly ashamed of the Government's performance and that he will urge his colleagues to accept this extremely modest Amendment.

Mr. Paul Dean: I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). It goes nothing like as far as I would wish, but we are in a position in which half a loaf is better than no loaf. I should have preferred the suggestion made earlier for bringing people up to the level of 1956.
Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Member that the Amendment goes some way to give more help to those who have been retired the longest and that it does so at a very modest cost. On Second Reading both the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary claimed—I quote from the Financial Secretary's speech—that the poorer pensioners will still be
doing better in relation to their original pensions than the better-off pensioners".
Yet when I interrupted the Financial Secretary to ask him whether it was a fact that under the Bill a pensioner receiving a pension below £500 would get a smaller increase than under the 1962 Act, he admitted that this was the case. As reported in col. 1459, he said,
That is quite true".—(OFFICIAL RF PORT, 18th November, 1965; Vol. 720, c. 1459.]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The hon. Member was speaking of the over-70's.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Dean: I should have said that it was for the over-70's. I admit that the Financial Secretary went on to give his reasons for claiming that the present Bill was the most equitable arrangement. But he did not deny that the over-70's on the smallest pensions would be less favourably treated under the Bill than under the 1962 Act.
This is the point to which the Amendment is applied. It is generally agreed on all sides of the Committee that those who have been retired longest are most in need of extra help. They are the people who have felt the effects of infla-

tion longest. Those who retired before 1956 have been less effectively insulated against inflation because the earlier Acts did not take this into account to the same extent as has been done in Acts since 1956.
The escalator principle was designed to some extent to meet the problem of the older pensioners, but it still did not meet the argument and could not meet the argument that the smaller the pension, the smaller the actual increase. This is surely one of the basic arguments against the escalator principle unless we take the escalation up to a very much greater extent than is the case at the moment. I admit that in this case we have 16 per cent. as the highest figure instead of 12 per cent. in the previous Bill, but the older pensioners on the smaller pensions are nevertheless not getting as big an increase as in 1962. Whatever the arguments may be against the flat-rate increase at 70, it resulted in additional help for the older pensioners on the smaller pensions, and some of these are not getting the National Insurance pension. This is an immensely important point which was mentioned on Second Reading.
Can the Financial Secretary tell us how many of these people there are? How many public service pensioners are there who are not getting the National Insurance pension? The number is probably comparatively small, but these are almost entirely in the older categories, and these are the people, in particular, with whom we should be concerned when we are discussing how we can best improve the lot of the older pensioners.

Mr. J. T. Price: I cannot answer the question as to how many, and no doubt my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary will give the figures. But a reply ought to be made to that point. There are a great many people in the country who were in the category of earning over £420 per annum and who under the old National Insurance Act were not entitled to receive a pension at all. Wide categories were opened up later by voluntary contributions. But it ought to be borne in mind——

The Chairman: Order. This is becoming a speech. Interventions are not for


the purpose of making replies. The hon. Member should wait until later when he may catch my eye.

Mr. Price: I am sorry, Sir Samuel. I will try to develop the point a little later.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member catches my eye later.

Mr. Dean: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and I hope that if he catches your eye, Sir Samuel, he will develop this point. I very much agree with the point which he made. We are dealing with people who did not join the National Insurance scheme, not because they were idle but because they were debarred from doing so by the regulations at the time. It was not their fault. They were not able to join the National Insurance scheme and to enjoy the pension which they would then have had.
The Bill does not maintain the 1962 differential. Indeed, within the group that we are speaking of, it is shifting the differential back to the higher pensions. I do not believe that we have been given convincing reasons by the Government why this should be so. We have been told that this is an interim Measure and that major changes are not being made now because the Government are not ready to make them. Surely, then, there is everything to be said for maintaining the 1962 pattern as precisely as possible until the major reform of the scheme is ready to be brought forward.
In this instance, the Government have fallen between two stools. They should either have kept to the original basis or brought in a radical reform of the whole system. The Amendment would go some way to meet the problem of the older, smaller pensioners, more adequately than the Bill as drafted. I hope that the Government will not reject the Amendment, but if they do they must give us good reasons for doing so.
Do they agree that the Amendment has merit? If they do not, why not? We shall not be convinced by stonewalling and by arguments that this is merely an interim Measure and that the Government will make no changes until they have done their homework. Nor will it be convincing if they suggest rejection of the Amendment on the ground of cost, for that has been shown to be comparatively modest.

But if the Government do put that forward as a reason for rejecting the Amendment, the onus is on them to find some way in which they can accept the spirit of the Amendment at a cost which can be afforded. I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to answer these points. I am pleased to support the Amendment.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am sorry if I was slightly out of order in making a few comments in my intervention just now, Sir Samuel. The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has made a thoughful contribution in support of the Amendment and I wish to make few comments on what he said and what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was saying when I came into the Chamber.
I say to the hon. Member for Orpington that it is one thing to make heroic gestures in support of some desirable reform and quite another to find the resources to carry it out. I listened respectfully to what he said and I hope that he will pay me a similar courtesy.
The attitude now adopted, seemingly, by the Liberal Party is to brush aside the Bill as something of little account. The hon. Member used strong adjectives in his peroration, pouring scorn on the Bill. I am entitled to remind him that, with all its limitations, the Bill involves the Exchequer in a charge of £18 million in the current year and more in later years.

Mr. David Steel: In that case, did not the hon. Gentleman hear the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) of the sum that would be involved in the Amendment?

Mr. Price: No. I said that I came in during his speech, when he was in full spate. I have not had the pleasure of listening to the whole of his argument. I am not suggesting that he does not support it with his usual sincerity. But I object to the impression being given that the Bill is only chicken-feed when, in fact, it involves the Treasury in an additional charge of £18 million plus subsequent increases which will be cumulative.
I doubt whether it is possible to draw an arbitrary line at 1950 and leave out, by some kind of rough justice, people who


retired in subsequent years, although I agree that many of those who retired before 1950 are getting inadequate pensions. But this would be a false and unscientific way of tackling the problem.
I am closely interested in pension funds in another context. The Government are being charged with slavishly following what some Tory Ministers did and with not doing something that will meet the whole need. But I remind the Committee that 16 million people, including public servants, out of a working population of 24 million, are enjoying pension schemes of one kind or another. Probably 13 million are in membership of voluntary funds, whose trustees have no public purse to make adjustments necessary to bring their pensioners up to a higher standard.
We must have a proper sense of balance of morality and equity on these questions. Because we can draw on the public purse, we must not be irresponsible. The House, by Statute, in the past has made generous provision for civil servants and I strongly support it. But to imagine that we can cushion people who happen to be in the Civil Service from all the effects of inflation is an illusion. It cannot be done. There are many other people in the country suffering the same kind of hardship with no possibility of redress except on a voluntary basis. I wish to see the position improved but we have to have a sense of reality.

Mr. Lubbock: Was this what the hon. Gentleman said to public service pensioners in his constituency during the election?

Mr. Price: I could not have said anything to them because I was never asked about it. If I had been asked, I would have given an honest answer. I do not make speeches at election time merely to be popular. That is not an honest way of politics. Everyone concerned should be reminded that there are many citizens in a less favourable position to pursue their claims.

Mr. Peter Walker: In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that when, before the election, the Chairman of the Labour Party said that it was moving towards parity, he was being irresponsible?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Price: I would need notice of that question. It is no good the hon. Gentleman trying those Front Bench tricks on me, for I have heard them all before. I would have to read what was said before I could comment. I hope that I have not wearied the House by bringing in a note——

Mr. Peter Walker: No. It has been very helpful.

Mr. Price: —which has been less harmonious than that which has previously prevailed, but it should be said that while we have great sympathy for these projects, we have to consider our resources. There are many thinks which I have wanted to do while I have been a Member—and I have been a Member for a long time, and I have seen some of my most cherished objectives put aside because the resources for them have not been available.
In addition to the benefits provided in the Bill for many people who will welcome them, limited though them may be, there have been pensions increases under previous Acts in 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1959 and 1962, so that almost a biennial review of the problem has been put before Parliament. All of the pre-1950 pensioners who would be especially benefited by the Amendment have already had six increases from those Acts. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I do not support the Amendment in its present terms, because it seeks to discriminate in a way which would not be a solution to the problem.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I support the Amendment even though the measure it proposes is very small and modest for trying to alleviate the situation of people who have been longest on pension. As I represent such a large number of older public service pensioners, I like to think that tomorrow they will all be able to read the observations of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), giving them the coldest and chilliest comfort in the coldest and chilliest winter, so that they will know what the Government are made of—unless the hon. Gentleman goes further still to settle their hash.
We know that the older codes of 1950, 1945 and 1919 supplied only miserably small pensions compared with those of the later codes. We know that they have been increased by percentage and flat-rate increases at certain times, but when the Government now say that in this differential scale of percentage increases the older pensioners will be getting a relatively bigger increase than those on the most recent codes, they know perfectly well that they are also to get less money than the others. Surely, for those who are most in need of the money to he receiving less money is an absolute travesty of justice.
When this is viewed in the context of the bombastic remarks by hon. Gentlemen opposite before the last election, which must have managed to seduce the allegiance of so many pensioners, I must say that this is one of the shoddiest performances which any party in office has ever put up. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that it was one thing to make a gesture and another to find the money. What has his party been doing all these years but making elaborate gestures? Even if he has not read the remarks of his party chairman about parity, the hon. Gentleman would do well to read them so as to be able to answer his constituents, because I am sure that they will be after him when his local paper reports what he has been saying about pensioners.
I support the Amendment as it moves in the direction I desire. This modest Amendment deserves our support, and if the Government do not mean to accept it, I firmly wish to go into the Lobby in its support.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). He should bear in mind that the Pensions (Increase) Acts which he sneeringly mentioned as being triennial——

Mr. J. T. Price: I have never sneered in the House of Commons. It is not my practice to sneer at anybody, but to listen respectfully even to the most hostile opinion.

Mr. Pounder: Shall I say "unsympathetically"? The 1956 Act gave a 10 per cent. increase on the 1952 rate, the 1959 Act a further 12 per cent. and the

1962 Act a further 12 per cent. increase. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about conserving national resources and not being extravagant but, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, the expenditure involved in granting the Amendment would not be very great. I admire the hon. Member for Westhoughton for not having made promises at the election merely to curry favour, but that was not the pattern of the speeches of quite a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends 13 or 14 months ago.
No one would say that the 18 per cent. increase suggested in the Amendment is the last word, but it is a step in the right direction. Nor is it all that rough justice, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton suggested it was, to draw the line at 1950. To draw it at 1955 probably would be, because between 1950 and 1955 there were substantial increases in Civil Service salaries, whereas before 1950 they were neither so frequent nor so substantial. Although an element of rough justice is involved in drawing the line at 1950, it would be a great deal fairer than taking the year 1955, or some other later date.
It is the older pensioner who is receiving the thin end of the stick in the Bill. On Second Reading, the Chief Secretary said that the Bill was a holding Measure. Can it therefore be assumed that in due course another Bill is likely to be presented, for this particular Bill makes no pretence at finding a solution to the problem of the long-term position of the public service pensioner? However, if the Bill is an indication of what a subsequent Bill from the Government would contain, it is not very encouraging.
The retired person who would be covered by the Amendment is now almost certainly an octogenarian, or very close to it. In the 1962 Act there was a bounty of £20 for the older pensioner. That bounty has gone out of the window in the Bill and in its place we have a flat 16 per cent. increase proposed in Clause I, which on £20 is about 1s. 3d. a week—wholly inadequate by any social or any other consideration.
I trust that the Government will he able to accept the Amendment, first because it goes some way towards giving justice to the older pensioner and, secondly, because even if one argues about


conserving national resources and not being wasteful and not squandering public funds, the amount involved is infinitesimal.
May I cite a specific case brought to my attention only 10 or 11 hours ago? It sums up the kind of position in which a tremendous number of pensioners are placed. It concerns, in fact, a lady teacher who retired in 1941 after 35 years' service. She retired before the compulsory National Insurance provisions were introduced. In 1941, her pension was £7 2s. 4d. a month. As the result of various Acts, it has been increased to £14 a month. The increase from £7 to £14 may seem reasonable, but it has to be remembered that over that period of more than 20 years the increases in the cost of living have been far in excess of the increases in her pension. Her pension now is £3 4s. 7d. per week. An additional 16 per cent. on that is about 10s. It is very important that something should be done—as a matter of conscience and social justice, if nothing else—to alleviate the very unfortunate position in which these persons are now finding themselves. The differential is wide. Salaries are very much higher now than they were 10 or 15 years ago. This is accepted. Please can something not be done to increase the pension entitlement for these old persons?

Mr. Norman Cole: I want to refer to one remark made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and then I will address my remarks specifically to the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman did not sneer, but he drew attention to the fact that previous Pensions Acts amounted almost to a triennial review. I think it is true to say that in every occupation in this country very few people go for three years without having a wage review. What is the difference between these people, be they manual workers or white collar workers and pensioners? I think a pensioner has a few more needs. Why we should not have Pensions (Increase) Bills every three years I cannot, for the life of me, see. I should like them to be almost biennial.
I hope that, in due course, we will reach a situation where we will have no need for these Bills and that instead betterment will flow automatically, as a right, to the pensioner. In comparison

with the amounts mentioned in the Financial Memorandum, the amount in this Amendment is very small indeed. I do not imagine that the Government will adduce cost as an argument against it. I hope that they will not because it will not be convincing. Forgetting all remarks made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton about "rough justice" and "we cannot necessarily cushion everybody", what is supposed to happen to someone who retired in 1951? The best we can do for that person is to give him the same increase in pension as if he retired in 1957 or afterwards.
What is supposed to have happened in those seven years? Are there supposed to have been no increases in the cost of living? There undoubtedly have been and this has nothing to do with the Government; it is an ordinary fact of life. I agree that we cannot go back to the very beginning of time, but I should have thought that going back to 1950, as previous Acts have done, is a modest halfway measure. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) said that most of these people would be octogenarians. They probably are, but they still have to live; they still have their needs, and they still live in a very affluent society such as we have today. It is much more expensive to live now than it was in 1950.
For these reasons, I cannot see that there is any real case for opposing this Amendment. It cannot be opposed on cost, on justice or equity to other people, because they are all getting their increases. It rather looks as if the longer one lives the less one gets and the more expensive one finds it is to live. All these people are ex-employees of the State, and this does not reflect on the honour of the State.
The hon. Member for Westhoughton tried to compare the people about whom we are talking. with many other people who are in a similar position but whose trustees do not have access to public funds. If these are public service people or people in the Civil Service, they will, in many cases, be denied the opportunities for making a little more money which obtain in many areas outside the service. To try to say that because other people in other walks of life cannot have certain increases, and by that means to deny this increase, is to argue, if one


took the matter to its logical conclusion, that we should not have any Pensions (Increase) Bills at all. People would have to go on and hope for the best. I think that that would be quite impossible and, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, quite mean and shabby if the Government cannot find this comparatively small figure which is a fraction of 1 per cent of the annual budget of this nation.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) realised what he was letting himself in for when he intervened in this debate.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am very flattered.

Mr. Steel: I am glad that the hon Gentleman is. He raised a number of points about the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) on the cost of the proposal which I and my Liberal friends have tabled. The cost of the proposal, as far as the Civil Service is concerned, is exactly £228,000. Compared to the cost of the whole Bill, which is £25 million, it is but a fraction of the total expenditure. Let us not pretend that we in the Liberal Party are being profligate with public funds in putting forward this modest proposal. The hon. Member for Westhoughton went on, in an almost contradictory argument, to say that he did not think that this was a very good idea, because we were not going far enough and not offering a large enough increase to those who were retired before 1950.

Mr. J. T. Price: This is the difficulty of debates in this Committee. A Member says something and another Member puts a construction and another Member puts a construction on it that suits his own argument. It is going on all the time and I do not complain about that. I am grateful for having had the figure quoted, but I am not unfamiliar with actuarial situations and I should need to see data on which that computation was made before I said yes or no to it. It may only be a minimal figure. However small it is, we are dealing with this as a matter of principle and we should not be unduly influenced by anything large or small.

Mr. Steel: The figure I quoted came from the Parliamentary Answer given by the Minister on 14th May this year. The speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westhoughton was well worthy of a speech from the Front Bench. Surprisingly enough, for a back bencher of the Labour Party he rejected an intervention by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who referred to the pledge given by the Chairman of the Labour Party at the time of the last election. The hon. Gentleman cast doubt on the origin of this quotation. I know that one cannot expect the Conservative Front Bench to be adequately briefed on this occasion, since their back-room boys have become front-room boys. However, I have the quotation and it comes from a letter of 14th September, 1964, to the Chairman of the Officers' Pensions Society. The Chairman of the Labour Party said:
… you will know that we are favourably disposed towards the principal of 'parity' and that we would open negotiations with interested bodies to see how reforms along these lines can be introduced.
I think that the Labour Party gave a very clear pledge about the kind of approach that they would have to the question of public service pensions. Now the Government have gone back on this. If any section of the population is to be disappointed with the performance of the Labour Party it is the older section. The party has gone back on a number of matters in which they led the electorate to believe. We have had the familiar references from the Labour Ministers to the old age non-pensioner, and the statement that they should seek National Assistance, which we have had from the Tories. Now we have in this Bill, no sign of a move towards the principle of parity which we understood the Labour Party to accept.
As far as this very modest proposal which we have put forward is concerned, we want to raise the scale of increase to those who retired before 1950 to 18 per cent. Eighteen per cent. is a magical figure in the ears of Labour Ministers at the moment. It is the figure of Labour's lead over the Conservative Party in the opinion polls. I am inclined to think that one reason why so many Conservatives appear to be so keen to support the Labour Government is that this is the soundest conservative administration we have had for some time.

Mr. Peter Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give the Liberal figure in that poll?

Mr. Steel: I dare say that, even if the hon. Gentleman has not been briefed with anything else, he has been briefed with that information. I have risen merely to give a concrete example of why I think the Government should accept this modest Amendment. The example is my own grandfather, who is 87. He retired in 1943 from being headmaster of a primary school with over 1,200 pupils. His pension today is £607. Under the Bill is will be increased 16 per cent. to £703. If the Government accepted our modest proposal, it would be increased to £720. That still does not compare with the figure for those who retired in 1957, which is as far back as the Government are prepared to go. The pension of a person in a similar situation—indeed, with a school half that size—who retired in 1957 is £752. The increase of 16 per cent. in the Bill will bring it up to £872. The present pension—never mind the lump sum—for someone retiring from that position is £1,035, which is very different from the £703 granted to people like my grandfather who retired before 1950.
The Liberal Party's proposal is not revolutionary, nor is it profligate. It will not bring down the country's economy. It would go a small way towards relieving the hardship of one section of the community.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I was very interested to hear some of the reasons why inflation is presumed to have started in 1956. It did not start then. I just do not understand why we should merely compensate those injured by inflation subsequent to 1956 and give no compensation at all to those injured by inflation before then, who are the oldest, the least able to look after themselves, and economically the weakest. If the Bill is to be a guide for the Services when we deal with them, this argument applies with much greater force to those who retired very much earlier even than these.

Mr. MacDermot: The movers of the Amendment argue as the reason for it that we should do more for those who have been longest on retirement. What they omit to mention is that, in so far as we have departed from the pattern of the

1962 Act, that is precisely what we have done, to give more benefit to those who have been longest on retirement.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) quite fairly asked, if it is being said that this is not an occasion for introducing drastic reforms, why the Government did not follow exactly the pattern of the previous Measure. I will try to answer that very fair question. The alteration that we have made is in order to spread the benefit broadly, to give most benefit to those who have been longest on retirement.
The second main assumption and argument made in support of the Amendment is that the further back in time one goes the smaller the basic pension on which the increase is calculated. Those were the words used by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). What the hon. Gentleman omitted to point out was that the increases are not calculated on the basic pension as originally granted but on the basic pension as it has been increased by previous measures, including the £20 in the last Act.
I quite take the point that it can be said that that benefit did something to help in a levelling out process. Those who got that benefit will not only keep it but will get their appropriate percentage increase, and I agree that for most of them it will be at the highest rate of 16 per cent. on that £20.

Mr. Lubbock: The figures I gave were actually the figures of pensions as adjusted by subsequent Pensions (Increase) Acts. I was saying that the Chief Secretary was entirely wrong when he claimed on Second Reading that these had been levelled up so that persons who retired in 1950 were now in receipt of the same pension as those who retired in 1957.

Mr. MacDermot: That is quite right as regards the figures the hon. Gentleman gave, but when he stated his principle at the outset I noted it very carefully. I think I have almost his ipsissima verba—the further back in time one goes the smaller the basic pension on which the increase is calculated. This is the source of the error underlying much of the argument we have heard.
Reference has been made to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said on Second Reading about the position


of those who had retired before 1957. Broadly speaking—my right hon. Friend was speaking broadly—what he said was true. For the great majority of pensioners—I know that there are exceptions; I will refer to them in a moment —the effect of the first three Acts after the last war has been to produce a general plateau in the pensions—that is, pensions with increases—of those who retired before 1957. It is not an exactly level plateau. There are troughs. There are mounds. There are slight dips and slight rises. Broadly speaking, 'for the great majority of pensioners there is a general equality in the pensions of those who retired prior to 1957. That generalism does not apply on the whole to the higher level pensioners; that is, those who retired from the higher levels of the Civil Service and, generally speaking, most of the officer class of the Armed Forces.
I assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that there are many cases where other ranks who retired a very long time ago have appreciably higher pensions than those who retired, say, round about the early 1950s. I have seen these figures and should be glad to show them to my hon. and learned Friend. That has been the effect of previous Pensions (Increase) Measures. It simply is not true to say as a generalism that the further back one goes the lower the pension that is being received. A particular comparison can be singled out to support an argument either way, but that is the general picture.

Mr. Cole: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has really put the whole of the argument up to now in that last sentence. I was waiting for it—one can produce a number of examples to prove the argument either way. That is just the point. I am concerned with those who are suffering, not with those who are all right.

Mr. MacDermot: The assumption on which the Amendment is put forward is that all those who retired before 1950 are, generally speaking, worse off than those who retired between 1950 and 1957. I assure hon. Members that this is not true and this is the mistaken assumption underlying the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is it not true flat more people, out of those

who retired before 1950, are on lower pensions than those who retired in later years.

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know the answer to that question, but it is among those on lower pensions that this general level of equality has, by and large, been achieved.
I come back to the question asked by the hon. Member for Somerset, North, why did not we follow the previous pattern? Perhaps I might explain how we approached this matter of seeing who was to get any special benefit that could be given in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) was perhaps the only hon. Member who started off, as it were, with his feet on the ground, in the way that we are compelled to do in the Treasury.
One must begin by asking, what are the resources available? What is the amount that is available out of public funds for the purposes of this Pensions (Increase) Bill? As was made clear during the Second Reading debate, the figure which my right hon. Friend decided was the most that could be made available was, in round terms, £25 million, not £18 million, when one takes into account the corresponding increases which will be made under the Royal Warrant for the Armed Forces.
The starting point, if one is basing oneself on the previous Measure, which we are, is a percentage increase with an escalation back to a 12 per cent. increase, which was the pattern of the previous Measure. A repetition of this basic pattern would itself cost between £21 million and £22 million.
We could have absorbed a large part of what remained between that and the £25 million which we had set ourselves by repeating the £20 flat rate increase, but, if we had done that, there would have been precious little room to do anything else. As has been pointed out, that was done last time. That benefit will continue and it will be perpetuated in the sense that those entitled to get it will get their percentage increase on top of it.
What we found ourselves able to do was to give the benefit generally to those who had been retired longest by including two more steps in the escalation. Roughly speaking, they cost £2 million


each for two more steps, namely, of 14 per cent. and 16 per cent. We found that we could do this without producing anomalies which, as has been pointed out in this debate, result if one seeks to make a higher percentage increase for those who retired before 1957.
The reason for this is that there is a general level for the majority of pensioners retiring in a given grade prior to that date. Therefore, if one starts giving higher percentage increases prior to that date it can have the effect of producing greater total pensions for the people who retired earlier than for those who retired later.
I do not know what was in the minds of the previous Administration when they introduced a flat rate increase of £20. but I suspect that one of the factors which led them to do that was the knowledge that as things stood at that date they could not go back beyond their 12 percent. increase without bringing themselves to make further steps earlier than the 1956 period and producing anomalies of that sort. We were not similarly inhibited, so we were able to spread this benefit among all those who had retired before 1957 with the two additional steps giving the 16 per cent. increase to those who retired before 1957.
We believe that that was the right decision, and anyone who argues that we ought to give the £20 flat rate increase must face the fact that it is a choice between those two. The hon. Member for Somerset, North faced that, and urged that we would have done better——

Mr. Lubbock: That is not the Amendment.

Mr. MacDermot: I know it is not. What the Amendment is seeking to do——

Mr. Lubbock: Why not deal with the Amendment?

Mr. MacDermot: The debate has ranged widely. I do not know whether hon. Members want me to reply to the debate so far as I can do so within the rules of order. If I do not I shall be stopped. I am seeking to meet the argument put forward.
The Amendment has picked out part of the group of people who retired before 1957 and says that we should give an extra

2 per cent. to those who retired before 1950. Perhaps I might first deal with the question of cost. The proposal could not be met within the ceiling set by my right hon. Friend without depriving someone else, and I do not know who it is suggested we should deprive. The hon. Member for Orpington worked out what the cost would be for the Civil Service alone, but we have to look at the whole picture. We have to consider teachers, local government officers, people in other public services, and also in the Armed Forces. The total cost would be about £1 million.
Perhaps I could give some illustrations of why we think the Amendment would not be an apt way of trying to give help to those longest retired. Perhaps I might take first the example of the clerical officer, which the hon. Member for Orpington mentioned. The figures I propose to give are those before the increases under the present Bill, but including previous increases, for a clerical officer who retired after 40 years service. If he retired on 31st December, 1939, his pension would be £360. If he retired in 1945 it would be £363. If he retired in 1947 it would be £360. If he retired in 1949, it would have dropped to £347. This is one of the troughs to which I referred. If he retired in 1951, his pension would be £352, and if he retired in 1953 his pension would be £358. I hope that that illustrates to hon. Members what I have been referring to as this broad plateau with troughs. Certainly in that pattern there is no reason to single out people who retired before 1951 and give them a greater increase than those who retired between 1951 and 1957.
I propose now to give the House comparable figures for an executive officer. If he retired in 1939, his pension would be £491. If he retired in 1945, it would be £493. If he retired in 1947, it would be £493 again. If he retired in 1949, it would be £485. If he retired in 1951, it would be £487, and if he retired in 1953, it would be £491, the same as the 1939 figure.

Mr. Cole: I have here a document sent to me by an organisation interested in this matter. The document says that if the 2 per cent, increase was given to a clerical officer who retired in 1949 the increase would be 2 per cent. of approximately £400, which is £8, making £407


against the 1957 retirement figure of £431. There is still a considerable difference.

Mr. MacDermot: One can take particular years and make comparisons, but I am pointing out that there is not this dividing line which hon. Members have assumed of a lower level up to 1951 and a higher level between 1951 and 1957. In so far as there is a point at which pensions generally have begun to rise, it is after 1956. The reason is that, generally speaking, the retiring salaries of people after that date have been higher as a result of increases in wages and earnings and, consequently, the pensions on which they were based have risen. This leads us to the wider question of parity.
I hope that what I have said is sufficient to show hon. Members that we have given careful thought to this matter but that the form of the increase which they are suggesting would do less justice than the form which we have chosen in the Bill. If we wanted to single out the people retiring before 1951 for more favourable treatment it would presumably have to be done at the cost of giving less benefit to those who retired later—and that, for reasons that I have given, would produce an unjust result.
For those reasons I must urge the Committee to reject the Amendment.
I am sorry that I have not dealt with one point. I was asked how many people drawing public service pensions do not draw National Insurance pensions. In some cases precise figures are not available, and they are merely estimates. However, it is a remarkably high figure for the Civil Service. I am told that over 96 per cent. of Civil Service pensioners also draw the National Insurance pensions. The figure is lower for the Forces, but it is nevertheless estimated that even there the figure is now between 85 per cent. and 90 per cent. In the case of teachers—another large class of public service pensioners—there is a lower proportion. It is estimated that about 75 per cent. also receive National Insurance pensions.

Mr. Peter Walker: We are grateful to the Financial Secretary for his explanation of the Government's view on this subject, and we are specially grateful to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for his contribution. The

hon. Member has great knowledge of these subjects and has been concerned over the years with pensions and superannuation in another capacity. His opinions in this House are always given with sincerity, although we may differ from him. On this question he was the great defender of the Treasury position, I hope that he and the Committee will understand our attitude in this matter, and the difficulty which we face.
Over the years, with various Pensions (Increase) Bills, there has been a steady improvement in the whole basis of public service pensions. It would have been possible, in any one such Bill, to overcome all the problems involved if a Government, of any complexion, had thought fit to spend the enormous sum of money required. I am the first to confess that in the series of public service pension Bills that we brought in we never tackled the whole problem, but in every such Bill we made a further advance towards tackling the total problem.
We introduced the public service pension Bill which provided an increase right through the scale, and in our last Bill we introduced the flat-rate pension for those over 70 years of age, which did quite a lot to close the gap between them and those who retired at a later date. We therefore hoped that when this Government introduced their Bill there would be a further reform of this nature.
We were disappointed to find that there was no such further adance. The increases given are substantial, but the danger of the position is that in practice these pension increase Bills tend to be introduced only every two or three years. After this Bill becomes an. Act there is no hope of improving the situation for another two or three years.
Great disappointment was felt by retirement pensioners owing to the fact that considerable promises had been made by the party opposite on this topic. Rightly or wrongly, many hon. Members opposite have argued that parity was to be the objective. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton was certainly of this view, and has sincerely maintained it since. This position is disputed by the Government Front Bench. Nevertheless, there were considerable hopes.
We are placed in a difficult position, because we feel that the Amendment has


its disadvantages, in that it creates further anomalies, as the Financial Secretary has pointed out. We are also in some difficulty because we wanted, to move Amendments which would remove all the anomalies. Unfortunately, they cannot be called because of the nature of the Financial Resolution. In this respect we find that the Government have gagged the Committee and made it impossible to remove the anomalies. We are left only with Amendments which to some extent help the situation of some pensioners but will certainly create anomalies in respect of others.
8.15 p.m.
On the last Pensions (Increase) Bill the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) moved an Amendment in terms almost identical to this. I admit that it was rejected by the then Government, but it was rejected on the grounds that they had introduced the extra flat rate £20 for those over the age of 70, which did something to close the gap. This Amendment does something to close the gap for some pensioners, but it does not deal with the problem in the manner that we would have desired, which is clearly expressed in Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 25, at end insert:
2.—(a) In the case of a person who retired before 1st January, 1956, the increase shall be a sum sufficient to make his pension equal to an amount that would have been payable to him if he had retired on 1st January, 1956. and had subsequently enjoyed the benefit of the Pensions (Increase) Acts 1959 and 1962 plus 16 per cent. of the aggregate annual rate that would otherwise be payable under this subsection:
As this Amendment is not being called, however, the only way available to us to express our concern that nothing has been done towards this end is to support the Amendment, and I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before we leave the Amendment, it might be useful to get certain figures straight, for the record. I would not have risen but for the fact that there was a slight difference between figures that I quoted off the cuff, without referring to documents, and later figures quoted by my hon. and learned Friend in reply to the debate. It is desirable to get the figures straight. I quoted from memory in my short intervention. I said that these proposals were not chicken feed

and were costing the Exchequer £18 million. I understand that the Financial Secretary considers the cost of the proposals to be £25 million. I thought that my proposal was about £1 million out, but I think that my hon. and learned Friend's figure is a good deal more out.
The overall cost of these proposals is over £25 million, it is true, but over £5 million is chargeable to local rates. Local authorities will be called upon to pay their quota of the cost involved in these increases, under the Teachers' Superannuation Act, the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1927, and certain similar Measures which affect these problems. It would be useful if my hon. and learned Friend could settle this question. We are all interested in local government as well as in the national problems with which we have to deal. It is sometimes forgotten that the legislation that we place on the Statute Book has a financial impact on local authority finances. Local authorities have to shoulder these burdens without ever being consulted as to the way in which they should foot the bill from the rates. I am not making this point facetiously or factiously; it is a matter which should be cleared up.

Mr. Martin Maddan: It may be that the Bill will increase the burden on local authorities and that they will have to find the money from their rates, but that only makes more urgent the need to tackle the problem properly, and to decide what share of the burden shall fall upon local government and central Government finances respectively. It is not an argument for not dealing fairly with pensioners, be they local government pensioners or central Government pensioners.

Mr. Price: I was not arguing that. My remarks are made in a different context. I am not putting this forward as an argument why the improvements should not be made in pensions. I support the Bill but I do not support the Amendment.

Mr. Maddan: It is this Amendment which we are talking about; I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.
I wanted to ask the Financial Secretary about a statement that he made, which is very important and which should be underscored—that, while there is a pre-1957 plateau, there are some troughs in


it. He then went on to say that in these troughs, in particular, are the senior civil servants.

Mr. MacDermot: I did not say that, with respect. I suggested that the plateau I was describing does not really apply to the senior civil servants and officers of the Armed Forces. I would be misrepresenting the facts if I suggested that it did. I said that for the great majority of the pensioners, there is a plateau, and this includes the poorer pensioners.

Mr. Maddan: The point I was going to make is that, whatever the imperfections of the Amendment which, under the rules of order, we are allowed to discuss, it will do something, if only a little, to help these people whom the Financial Secretary expressly picks out as being very unfortunately treated and worse treated than pensioners as a whole. Although the Amendment may be imperfect, that is not the fault of hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
We are discussing the fact that my hon. Friends feel bound to support the Amendment and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take note of this, unless he is able to say that he and his colleagues will remedy these injustices in another way at another stage. If he is not prepared to tackle either the problem of older pensioners or the problem that he indicated, that senior civil servants as a whole have had treatment much worse than that meted out to other pensioners, he cannot expect us to support his argument on this Amendment. We should not let this go without setting on record the fact that, at an early date and on the next available occasion—if it cannot be achieved now—the lot of the older senior civil servants must, in justice and equity, be dealt with.

Mr. Paget: I am very glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy present, as he is responsible for pensions for the Armed Forces generally. I am particularly glad that he was present to hear the Financial Secretary say that this "plateau" argument upon which he rejects the Amendment does not apply to Armed Forces pensions. It certainly does not. I have figures here which show that the codes for a captain and a major before the 1949 Bill were, respectively, £560 and £777. The 1956

codes were £676, which is more than £100 more, and £844.
Equally, of course, the 16 per cent. does not apply. It is very much more important because, between 1956 and the present day, the increases are more like 30 per cent. than 16 per cent. I understand, however, that all these matters will be considered before we get the Warrant for the Forces' pay. But it must be clearly understood before that is negotiated that the arguments which support the Government on this Bill will not support them on the pay Warrant. The pay Warrant must be dealt with on a different basis and it should be understood that we must have an opportunity to do that when the Warrant comes up.

Mr. Gower: I believe that the whole Committee was impressed by the clarity with which the Financial Secretary declared his objections to the Amendment. I was not at all clear, however, why he had to bring in two distinct arguments. First, he explained that a formidable objection was the existence of this pre-1957 plateau. He explained that in a very interesting way and it seemed possible that that argument was valid.
However, as a subsidiary argument, he then explained that there were certain overall financial objections, that the amount which could be devoted to the Bill was severely limited and that it could be done only if more money were available from the Exchequer or if other classes who would benefit under the Bill were deprived.
I was not sure whether, if the plateau argument had not existed, he would have been prepared to agree the Amendment in the face of the budgetary objections. On the other hand, I was not clear whether, if the total global financial objection had not existed, he would have agreed to the Amendment provided that there was no plateau argument. It was difficult to tell from his remarks which was the more formidable.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) that, unless we have the kind of assurance which has been sought, we must support the Amendment.

Mr. Lubbock: In common with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), I will say I would not have put


this Amendment forward with the seriousness I did if we had been able to have any disussion on Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 which, I understand, we are not allowed to discuss. I freely admit that this Amendment does not represent what we want. It is only a small part of the move towards bringing the pensions of the older pensioners somewhere near present-day levels. I am sorry but I must disagree with the Financial Secretary in what he said about the plateau and I intend to show him where he is entirely wrong on this matter by quoting some figures. I would not have wearied the House with them if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made this spurious claim. He said that he was trying to reply to the debate when I tried to get him off the subject of the once-for-all bonus in the 1962 Bill, which I do not recall has been mentioned in this discussion.
The hon. and learned Gentleman completely ignored everything I said about the remarks by the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during discussion of the 1962 Bill. So if he intends to reply to the debate—as perhaps he will have the courtesy to do—in a few moments, perhaps he will address himself to those quotations I gave from the right hon. Gentleman's speeches. I am sure that they are precisely the sort of sentiments which we had hoped for from the Government this evening.
It is a great disappointment to me that the Government are not prepared to accept this very small Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that they departed from a 1962 principle only in order to give the most benefit to those longest on retirement. The hon. Member cannot have been listening to my speech, because I gave the example of the postman who was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who received 17s. 10d. under the 1962 proposals and who will receive 10s. 2d. under the Bill. The Minister is quite incorrect in saying that the greatest benefits have invariably been given under the Bill to those who have been retired longest.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member must not put words into my mouth. I did not say "invariably". He can pick a particular case of a man who benefited

substantially from the special benefits conferred under the 1962 Act, which we have not repeated, and he can say that this man does not get the same benefit on this occasion. I was describing the broad picture.

Mr. Lubbock: I took a particular case and the hon. and learned Gentleman chose to ignore it. But if he wants it in general terms, anybody who is receiving less than £500 in pension will be worse off under these proposals than under the previous proposals.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is wrong. That applies only to the particular case to which he was referring—to persons over 70. But other people, instead of getting a 12 per cent. increase, are getting a 16 per cent. increase.

Mr. Lubbock: As we are talking about people who retired as long ago as 1950, I am justified in supposing that a very large majority of them are now over the age of 70.

Mr. MacDermot: A great many are not.

Mr. Lubbock: I did not say that a great many are not; I said that a large majority are. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to produce some figures. He does not like this because he does not like arguments which do not suit his case. I am saying that many people did better under the Tory Act than under this Measure, and that is incontrovertible.
I promised to deal with the argument about the plateau of those who retired before 1957. He said that it was not exactly a level plateau because it did not apply at the higher levels. I have here a graph which has been constructed from an Answer by the hon. and learned Gentleman to a Question on 19th January, 1965, and reported in col. 4 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It shows differences in the amounts payable to persons who retired at a given date compared with their colleagues who retired in 1964. The hon. and learned Gentleman can see for himself that it is not a plateau. It looks like a roller coaster. There are very great differences indeed in the pensions paid, and I could give many examples. These differences are


between the pensions of persons who retired at a given date, shown along the bottom of the graph, and their equivalents who retired in 1964.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member is seeking to support his argument with figures for those who retired in 1964, but the issue which we are discussing is whether those who retired before 1951 require some special treatment compared with those who retired between 1951 and 1957. Comparisons with 1964 do not help.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. and learned Member should see the slope of this graph. It is the same all the way along. I will give him some detailed figures of pensions of those who retired in 1950, compared with those who retired in 1957. I do not see how he can possibly pretend that this constitutes a plateau. The difference between a clerical officer who retired on 31st March, 1949, and a clerical officer who retired on 31st March, 1957 —these figures come from his own Answer on 19th January—is £28. For an executive officer it is £41, for a higher executive officer is £65, for a senior executive officer it is £66, for a principal it is £93 and for an assistant secretary it is £199. How the hon. and learned Member can possibly pretend that this is a plateau is past understanding.
The answer to him is given in the claim of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that parity for 1956 would cost £11 million. It can cost £11 million only if there are a great many people who retired before 1956 who are receiving pensions substantially lower than those of people who retired at that date. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways. Either he should reconsider the figure of £11 million which was given by the Chief Secretary on Second Reading or he should confess that the pensions of those who retired a long time before 1956 are very much lower than the pensions of those who retired at that date. There may be a few instances of a clerical officer who retired in 1939 receiving £360 whereas his counterpart who retired in 1949 receives only £344, but that Is tolerable, because the person who retired in 1939 has had very much longer to live on this small amount of pension than has his colleague who retired ten years later.

Mr. J. T. Price: I warn the hon. Member that the argument of parity which he is pursuing is a very dangerous argument. If it is pursued to its logical conclusion he must take all factors into account. If the argument of parity is to be pursued into such fine detail, I ask him to remember that there are eight million British citizens who have no pension. Their situation ought to be a subject for comparison. All the talk about parity is so much hypocrisy if he forgets that, apart from the State pension, eight million people in this country have no pension at all. I am getting tired of this argument.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman had to make that intervention because it was his hon. Friends who spent a whole night talking to prevent any discussion on the Bill which had been presented by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in the last Session. If he really believes so strongly that non-pensioners should be given National Insurance Pensions as of right, I hope that he will have an opportunity very soon of matching his deeds to his words because I understand that another hon. Member is taking over the Bill which was originally presented by the hon. Member for Abingdon. I trust that it will have the support of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) when it comes up for Second Reading. I am rather surprised, Sir Leslie, at your tolerance in allowing me to answer that intervention.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir L. Thomas): If the hon. Member is objecting to my tolerance he can sit down forthwith if he wishes.

Mr. Lubbock: I was thanking you, Sir Leslie, for giving me an opportunity to reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who really must not try to get the Committee on to a subject which is not relevant to the Bill. In any case, to say that because we have not done anything for non-pensioners we should exclude the claims of the people we are now discussing and who retired before 1950 is a spurious argument.
I will merely end by saying that the Financial Secretary made an extremely feeble speech which will be read with dismay by people who retired before 1950 and who will wish us to go into the Division Lobby immediately.

Mr. Paget: Might I, first, have an assurance from the Financial Secretary in regard to Service pensioners?

Mr. MacDermot: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has asked me for an assurance about Service pensioners, but I do not think that it would be in order for me to give him it. I thought that he was seeking to prepare the ground for an argument which he wanted to build in a later debate, to which my right hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Defence would reply. However, I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend would be on very sure ground. The broad plateau to which I referred exists, I assure him, for the great majority of Service pensioners. As I said, it is not so for the officers.
The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) was seeking from me an assurance that we would introduce a special measure into the Bill designed to meet the special cases of what are, on the whole, the better-off pensioners—the higher Civil Service and officers in the Forces. I could not give him any such assurance and can only point out that the party of which he is a member introduced several pension Measures and, apart from general increases, were able to give, in different Measures, benefits to particular classes of pensioners but that they did not single out a class for special treatment. Now, in Opposition—where they are likely to remain for long years —we hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, as we did on Second Reading, giving a bold pledge, one which they had not costed, to the effect that they were going to introduce parity to 1956 to benefit this class which they did not single out for special benefit up till now.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) a number of questions. One was the explanation of the Chief Secretary's reference to the fact that parity to 1956 would cost upwards of £11 million. The point is that by far the greatest part of that benefit would, for the reason I have given, under such a Measure go to the better-off pensioners. It was the effect of the provisions in the earlier, post-war Acts that there was a maximum limit of increase which could be given and so it was the poorer pensioners who, on the whole, benefited most proportionately from those earlier

Acts. That is the historical reason why this general plateau does not apply to pensioners who retired from the most senior grades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) asked about the amount of the cost which would fall on local authorities. He is perfectly correct. Upwards of £5 million of the total cost will fall on the rates out of the total cost in terms of public expenditure of just over £25 million.

Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Peter Walker rose——

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Peter Walker: I can well understand hon. Members opposite shouting "Oh" when I rise, but after what the Financial Secretary has said one is provoked to do so. That he should talk in front of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) about the promises we are now making for pensions increases is a matter of great courage on his part. He knows that in what was said by his hon. and learned Friend and by the Chairman of the Labour Party in almost every debate on the Pensions (Increase) Bill of 1962, promises were made that remain completely unfulfilled in this present Measure.

Mr. Maddan: As the Financial Seccretary has referred to What I have said, I shall say something back. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has pointed out, just because something was not done in 1962 is no reason for saying that it must never be done at all. At least in all the Acts up to then progress had been made in dealing with these various anomalies. Secondly, in the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to these more senior civil servants his implication was that as these people were better off it did not matter that their standard of living was being eroded. The Financial Secretary shakes his head—will he say whether he thinks that it does matter?

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member cheapens, shall I say, the intervention, because he knows perfectly well that he is trying to put in my mouth something that I never said. I did not in the least say that it did not matter. I said that when we are considering to which classes any additional benefit above the average


should be given, I was rather surprised to find the hon. Member suggesting that this particular class should be singled out in comparison with others. I would remind him that these senior civil servants are getting a larger percentage increase in this Bill than in any previous Bill.

Mr. Maddan: Mr. Maddan rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) has had a pretty good innings.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 132, Noes 169.

Division No. 6]
AYES
[8.42 p.m


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Murton, Oscar


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Astor, John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Awdry, Daniel
Glover, Sir Douglas
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Baker, w. H. K.
Goodhart, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Raymond
Peel, John


Barlow, Sir John
Grant, Anthony
Peyton, John


Batsford, Brian
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Prior, J.M. L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bingham, R, M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Box, Donald
Harrison, Gol. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Roots, William


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hastings, Stephen
Royle, Anthony


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Gol. Sir Walter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Sharpies, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hendry, Forbes
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hornby, Richard
Stainton, Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Buxton, Ronald
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Stodart, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chataway, Christopher
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cole, Norman
Kilfedder, James A.
Temple, John M.


Cooke, Robert
Kirk, Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Crowder, F. P.
Longbottom, Charles
Waltler, David (High Peak)


Curran, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Currie, C. B. H.
MacArthur, Ian
Weatherill, Bernard


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Webster, David


Dean, Paul
Maddan, W. F. M.
Whitelaw, William


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Maginnis, John E.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Doughty, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Eden, Sir John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrlge-Gordon, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wylie, N. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mitchell, David



Errington, Sir Eric
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Farr, John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Eric Lubbock and




Mr. David Steel.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Albu, Austen
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchanan, Richard
Dell, Edmund


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dempsey, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Joel
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Donnelly, Desmond


Bence, Cyril
Chapman, Donald
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Coleman, Donald
Dunn, James A.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Conlan, Bernard
Dunnett, Jack


Binns, John
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ensor, David


Blackburn, F.
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs, Alice
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)


Boardman, H.
Dalyell, Tam
Fernyhough, E.


Boston, Terence
Darling, George
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelcs S.W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boyden, Jamas
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)




Floud, Bernard
McCann, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mclnnes, James
Sheldon, Robert


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tlc-on-Tyne, C.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Garrow, Alex
Manuel, Archie
Skeffington, Arthur


Gourlay, Harry
Mapp, Charles
Small, William


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Maxwell, Robert
Snow, Julian


Gregory, Arnold
Mayhew, Christopher
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles
Millan, Bruce
Stones, William


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Swingler, Stephen


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Symonds, J. B.


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Murray, Albert
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hannan, William
Neal, Harold
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newens, Stan
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hazell, Bert
Norwood, Christopher
Tinn, James


Heffer, Erie S.
Oakes, Gordon
Tomney, Frank


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Ogden, Eric
Tuck, Raphael


Horner, John
O'Malley, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Varley, Eric G.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin


Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hoy, James
Owen, Will
Watkins, Tudor


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Padley, Walter
Weitzman, David


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Paget, R. T.
Wellbeloved, James


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lawson, George
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Zilliacus, K.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Randall, Harry



Lomas, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Loughlin, Charles
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mrs. Harriet Slater and


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor
Mr. Joseph Harper.


McBride, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

The Temporary Chairman: Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the Order Paper have not been selected and we shall therefore proceed to Amendment No. 5.

Mr. Peter Walker: Mr. Peter Walker rose——

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. Do I understand, Sir Leslie, that you have not selected Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 25, at end insert:
Provided that any person who retired earlier than 1st April 1956 shall be deemed to have retired on 1st April 1956 for the purposes of this Act.
and Amendment No. 3, in line 25, at end insert:
Provided that in the case of a person who retired before 1st January 1956 the increase shall be not less than a sum sufficient to make his pension equal to the pension that would have been payable to him if he had retired on 1st January 1956.
as well as Amendment No. 4, which has been mentioned previously? Is that because they are out of order under the terms of the Money Resolution?

The Temporary Chairman: I have not selected them. They are out of order because they are quite outside the scope of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Peter Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert:
except that for the word 'sixty' in subsections (2)(a) and (3)(a) there shall be substituted the word fifty-five'
The object of the Amendment is simple. It is to ensure that those public service pensioners who retired before the age of 60 enjoy the benefits of the Bill at the age of 55 instead of waiting until the age of 60. As the Committee will be aware, there are a number of occupations—for example, the police service and the fire service—and the Bill also indirectly affects the Armed Services—where people retire before 60, having completed their service. They do not get any benefit from the Bill until the age of 60 is reached.
The Committee must decide, therefore, where they are deserving cases, whether they have a right to receive these increases and one has to argue the purpose of these Pensions (Increase) Measures. The purpose is not just elimination of hardship. If it was just that it would be done probably by supplementary pensions, by National Assistance, or in some other way. The purpose of the Bill is


to see that pensions keep pace with the rise in the cost of living and in the general prosperity of the community.
For example, a police officer who completed his service at the age of 50 and retired in 1956 or 1957 will not on 1st January obtain any increase whatever under the Bill and he will have to wait a year or two until he reaches the age of 60 before he benefits in any way. But, during the interim, he will have to suffer the rise in the cost of living. During the past year, public service pensioners under the age of 60 will have had their pensions reduced by about 1s. in the £ as a result of the rise in the cost of living since this Government came in, but they will receive no compensation for this under the Bill. This is one of the reasons why we move this Amendment to substitute the age of 55.
Adoption of the age of 55 will mean that the gap between retirement and the time when public service pensioners enjoy the benefit of these increases will, for the majority of them, be considerably diminished, and it will also cover that particular group of pensioners who find it difficult to secure other employment at the age of 55. The more elderly a person is, the more difficult he finds it to obtain appropriate employment. Adoption of this Amendment would, therefore, be of particular assistance to Service personnel finishing their service at the age of 54 or 55 who find great difficulty in securing other remunerative employment. They will have the advantage of the increases provided by our Pensions (Increase) Acts.
This is a matter of importance not only for the people directly concerned but also for recruitment in the various public services. Many of our police forces are grossly under establishment today, and this is particularly so in the Metropolitan Police District where the measure of the increase in crime is very much related to the problems of police recruitment. One of the advantages that the police service can offer to attract recruits is the pension provisions, but these pension provisions become far less attractive when a police officer can complete a very long period of service and then at the end not obtain this benefit from Pensions (Increase) Acts for another number of years.
This point should carry favour with the Treasury under the leadership of the pre-

sent Chancellor because no one can be more aware of the problems of the police service than the right hon. Gentleman as he was for many years consultant to the Police Federation. He will know what a serious bone of contention it is in the police service that these increases do not apply to police pensioners. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will be able to avoid a long debate by at once accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: I have often argued that, when the State enters into a bargain, it should make that bargain good in good money since it controls the money. I argued that often when I sat on the opposite benches. My personal interest is in the Armed Services, and I have Service men in mind as a guide to what happens to a man in this context. Members of the Armed Services were men who joined on the basis of a bargain as to pay, and part of that bargain was retired pay. For them, it is not a pension at all; it is retired pay. They accepted considerably lower rates of pay than the similar grades in civil employment because of the pension benefits.
9.0 p.m.
It is not a question of need or want. It is a question of a bargain being honoured or not being honoured. Therefore, it seems to me that if one does not make good in real money the bargain that one has made, one is not treating one's public servants honestly. I thought that on Second Reading the Economic Secretary accepted that argument, but he said—I think there was considerable weight in it—that it is true that it would not be decent or good employer behaviour to pay a pension of less purchasing power than the pension which one bargained to pay, hut, after all, one has to consider all the pensions that one pays and in this case we have very considerably increased the National Insurance pension, and that has to be taken into consideration, for public service pensioners are receiving pensions of better purchasing power than the pensions which we bargained to pay them.
That seems to me to be a perfectly good argument, but it is hardly a sincere argument if one does not apply it to people who do not get National Insurance pensions, and we are talking about precisely that class. These people at 55


are not getting the National Insurance pension, they are not getting the increased pension, and they are not, I should have thought, on any reckoning getting what they bargained for or what they expected for the service which they rendered. This is certainly very strongly their view. This class of pensioner feels that he has been swindled. That is a very serious factor in regard to recruitment.
The most fertile field of recruitment was always the Service family—for officers, N.C.Os and privates. They were families which, years and years, generations and generations, joined one of the Services. Now there have been planted in those families a number of anti-recruiting officers, who are saying to the men growing up, "Look how the Army treated me", and we are not getting recruits from those families.
This is a very serious problem. I do not know the police situation as well as I know the Army situation, but I should have thought that when one sees the crime rate, when one sees the progressive victory of the criminal over the law—which we see year after year—when we see it becoming more and more established that crime does pay, it must be clear that the loss of recruits, and the right sort of recruits, from the right sort of family, with the right sort of background, is very serious for the police forces. However, I would point out that the Service position of earlier retirement is very much more difficult, and requires different consideration.

Captain Walter Elliot: My impression is—and I think it to be right—that many more people from the public services, including the Armed Services, continue working in one job or another after retirement today than was the case some decades ago. No doubt it is also true that a man retiring at 60 perhaps is not quite so likely to take another job as one retiring at 55. However, I still believe that far more public servants take other jobs after retirement than was the case a few decades ago. It is on that principle, I believe, that the Government are limiting the increase to the age of 60 and after, as opposed to the age of 55. I cannot think of any other reason.
But, at whatever age a public servant retires, whether he works or not afterwards, the importance of the pension to him should not be underestimated. If a public servant is able to work in his normal career free from anxiety as to his financial future when he retires, at whatever age that is, I believe that he will work more efficiently. If he thinks that, when he retires at 55 or 60, he will not be able to support his family, if they have not grown up, or live reasonably, then he begins to worry about it and to concern himself during his active career about what he will do.
He may start—many of them do—training himself for another job. He may work late after he has finished his ordinary day's work and I believe that affects his efficiency in his normal career. This is the only point I wish to make but it is important. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment for this and the other reasons put forward.

Dr. Bennett: I endorse what has been said, notably by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), from a certain amount of first-hand knowledge of precisely the anti-recruiting effect that is inflicted upon the community in my constituency, which is overwhelmingly Service-minded.
Large numbers of my constituents are very indignant that pensions increase measures provide for increases which are unobtainable until some date in future. Surely, having earned a pension, a man has also earned the increases. This has been a way of short-changing our Service men, both civil and military, which must be ended. The Amendment will do so and I strongly support it.

Mr. Dean: I was a little surprised by what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said in the earlier part of his speech, because it is certainly my impression that the sort of people about whom we are now thinking, those who have retired at the age of 50 or thereabouts, in spite of the shortage of labour are finding increasing difficulty in getting alternative employment when they retire.
We are dealing with people who of necessity retire comparatively early, the Armed Forces, who retire between 40 and 50;the fire services, who also retire


fairly early; the police who retire at 50 or thereabouts; and the overseas public servants who retire in their early or mid-fifties. These people retire early necessarily because of the nature of their employment, or because of the difficult climate in which they have been working. It has been my impression that many of them have found it extremely difficult to get other employment, and, if they are 55 or more, it is virtually impossible for them to get other employment which carries a pension with it. In these cases they will have to wait an average of 10 years after retirement before they can hope for any increase under the pensions increase arrangements. Those are strong arguments for reducing the age to 55.

Mr. A. P. Costain: These people retire at an early age because their jobs necessitate their retiring at an early age. They take their appointments in the belief that they are doing a service and will get a pension. If the job warrants their retiring at an early age, why should we differentiate against them because the employer—the Government—demands that they should retire? Surely it is unfair for the Government to say, "We as employers ask you to retire because you are too old", and then not put them on a different pension basis. I am sure that the Financial Secretary, as a good employer, will appreciate that they are entitled to any increases which are due to any other pensioner.

Mr. MacDermot: I would point out to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) that the Amendment is not confined to those who retire at an early age, but is a broad Amendment proposing that all public service pensions increases should become payable at the age of 55. It would apply equally to those who retired before 55 as well as those retiring at that age.
Hon. Members who have had the misfortune to listen to my winding-up speech on Second Reading will not hope for any help from the Government on this Amendment, because I then gave the reasons why we were unable to accept the proposals, which arose on Second Reading, for an alteration of the age from 60 to 55. If it were not disrespectful to the Committee, I could say that I

referred hon. Members to what I said at column 1456.
We at the Treasury constantly have to bring hon. Members back to the matter of cost. The cost of this proposal would be £5 million, a very large sum. I remind hon. Members of what I said in that connection in the debate on the previous Amendment. If we were to grant this concession, within the limits of the sums available there would have to be a very substantial reduction in the percentage increases which have been awarded. If we completely cut out the two top steps, the 14 per cent. and the 16 per cent., and said that everybody must receive only the 12 per cent. increase, that still would not provide enough funds to make room for this Amendment. The needs of those who have retired longer are much greater than this need, and that consideration goes to the root of the matter.
9.15 p.m.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), with his great fairness in debate, which I have come to respect, pointed out the crux of this matter, namely, that fortunately today those who retire early—and they are primarily people in the Forces, the police and the fire service—are able to obtain other employment and do so. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) who moved this Amendment, said that the purpose of pensions increase measures was not the relief of hardship. All I can say is that all of his hon. Friends who have introduced previous pensions increase measures have said that that was the purpose of the Measure. We have come to accept the doctrine of relative hardship as well as the doctrine of absolute hardship. Therefore, we have to compensate not only the poorest pensioners, but also the better-off pensioners, who have suffered the relative hardship of a reduction in the value of their pension.
We must face the fact, when dealing with some pensioners, that they may take other employment and may be able, by this means, to offset by their earnings the evils of inflation, which is what underlies the whole of these pensions increase measures. Surely they cannot be regarded as the most deserving cases, and


the people who should be given the treatment asked for in this Amendment, at the cost and expense of giving a substantially smaller increase to those who have been longest in retirement. Quite clearly it is a matter of national policy that we must give encouragement to people who retire early to find other work, and to help the manpower gap. So far as this Amendment would provide a disincentive to that, it would be contrary to an important part of our national policy.

Dr. Bennett: The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is fair in so far as he deploys it, but does he think that it is fair and equitable that people have to retire from Service life which may have been arduous, and are then compelled to look for jobs because they are not being paid the full pension, plus its increases, to which they are absolutely entitled by their work?

Mr. MacDermot: If "compelled" is the word, I do not know, but certainly the people who retire aged 40 to 50, if they are fit and healthy and able to work, should be given every inducement to seek work. It is in their own and the national interest that they should do so. If they are not able to work, then they become entitled to pension increases under other provisions. For this reason I must urge the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald Bell: We have found that a not surprising and a disappointing answer. It has certainly not persuaded anyone on this side of the Committee. As to what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying at the end of his speech in justification for not accepting this Amendment, how can he really argue that a person retiring at the age of 50, is in a position to find work of a fully remunerative character, which will enable him to offset the damage caused by inflation to the value of his pension? This sort of argument about the person who is in current employment not suffering from deflation is a valid argument for those who are in the full working years of life.
But by definition this Amendment can only apply to those who have retired with an entitlement to a pension precisely because the work they did, whether in the police, the fire service, the overseas

services or the Armed Forces, was such that it was considered that they would have exhausted the value of their skill in active service by the time they reached that age. If they worked overseas they would have reached a degree of physical exhaustion which they would not have reached in a temperate climate. This is not a case of sickness or of being unable to work. It is a case of being past the full vigour of life. That is the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman is neglecting to take fully into account. The hon. and learned Gentleman said in his speech that it was right that those who retired, and were on pension before 40 and 50 years of age should do a good day's work and should be encouraged to do so. I do not dissent from that, but the Amendment applies to the age of 55, not to the age group 40–50 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I do not know whether that was a slip of the tongue, but that was what he said.
Several of my hon. Friends have said that this is a difficulty in the pensions system which undoubtedly has and will have its effect upon recruitment for these services, whether it be the Civil Service actually affected by the Bill, or the Armed Forces indirectly affected. Recruitment, whether it is for the police, for the fire services or for the Armed Forces, is not a matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman can be indifferent. We on this side are certainly not indifferent to it.
In the case of the ordinary home Civil Service I believe the position to be this. Though a man may retire before the age of 60, he receives no pension; it is put into suspense until he becomes 60. Therefore, for those people the Bill is perfectly tailored, as its predecessors have been. It is exactly designed to meet the needs of the home Civil Service, because they could not be benefited by any provision in a Pensions (Increase) Act which affected anybody below the age of 60. No doubt that is why the age of 60 has from the beginning appeared in those Acts.
This neglects the position, to which we have drawn attention and to which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has drawn attention, of the people in those services which are different from the home Civil Service and who, in every case, retire


at an earlier age than 60, though it varies between the Armed Forces, from which an officer may come out at the age of 48, and the police, from which he is more likely to retire at a considerably older age, though still under 60.
The Financial Secretary might have said—for all I know, he said it in column 1456, to which he so kindly referred—that he is carrying on the system which we used in our Pensions (Increase) Acts. We particularly prided ourselves on introducing progressive improvements in each of those Acts. We had the initial increases all round the scale. We had the £20 for those over 70, and so on. What improvement is the hon. and learned Gentleman introducing?

Mr. MacDermot: I will tell the hon. Gentleman—a step of 14 per cent.; a step of 16 per cent., two additional steps, higher increases than have ever been given before. We are extending it to classes of pensioners, in a number of respects dealt with in Clauses which we shall come to later, who were not covered by previous Bills. The hon. Gentleman is so full of his own proposals that he has failed to ignore what is in the Bill.

Mr. Bell: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a little infelicitous in his language tonight. I know that he meant the opposite of "failed to ignore", but never mind; the effect was understood. What the hon. and learned Gentleman managed to reel off with considerable facility was a number of minor Amendments of degree and not a radical improvement all round, which is what we are concerned-with. The

view which we on this side hold is that, after the improvements which we made in our Bills, the outstanding improvements which need to be made are, first, to bring the pensions of all concerned up to the 1956 level and, secondly, to introduce the improvement which is the subject matter of the Amendment, namely, to bring the age for benefit under the Pensions (Increase) Acts down to 55. We are very sorry indeed that the Government do not take the same interest in this as we do. The hon. and learned Gentleman even referred us to his speech on Second Reading, as though that were an adequate way of dealing with an Amendment such as this.

The party opposite takes a much keener interest in the whole subject of pensions at election time than it does at twenty minutes past nine in the evening in Committee on the Bill, when the quorum is provided only by this side—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite come in from all sorts of remote parts of the building when there is a Division, but they have not got enough interest in the proceedings to listen to them.

We regard the Amendment as one of great importance, on which we have received a totally unsatisfactory answer from the Financial Secretary, and therefore we intend to press this to a Division. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 134, Noes 165.

Division No. 7.]
AYES
[9.25 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Buxton, Ronald
Foster, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Chataway, Christopher
Glover, Sir Douglas


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Goodhart, Philip


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gower, Raymond


Awdry, Daniel
Cole, Norman
Grant, Anthony


Baker, W. H. K.
Cooke, Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.


Balniel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Barlow, Sir John
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Batsford, Brian
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Ronald
Crowder, F. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Curran, Charles
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Biffen, John
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bingham, R. M.
Dean, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Black, Sir Cyril
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hastings, Stephen


Box, Donald
Doughty, Charles
Hawkins, Paul


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Eden, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hendry, Forbes


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Emery, Peter
Hornby, Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Errington, Sir Eric
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Eyre, Reginald
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Farr, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith




Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kilfedder, James A.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kirk, Peter
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Temple, John M.


Kitson, Timothy
Peel, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Peyton, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Longbottom, Charles
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lubbock, Eric
Prior, J. M. L.
Walder, David (High Peak)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Maddan, W. F. M.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Webster, David


Maginnis, John E.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, William


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Roots, William
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Royle, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Miscampbell, Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mitchell, David
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith



Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hn. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Murton, Oscar
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Stodart, Anthony
Mr. Dudley Smith.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrow, Alex
Oswald, Thomas


Albu, Austen
Gourlay, Harry
Owen, Will


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Padley, Walter


Alldritt, Walter
Gregory, Arnold
Palmer, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Grey, Charles
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Pavitt, Laurence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Popplewell, Ernest


Bence, Cyril
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Prentice, R. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Probert, Arthur


Binns, John
Hazell, Bert
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blackburn, F.
Heffer, Eric S.
Randall, Harry


Bienkinsop, Arthur
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Rees, Merlyn


Boardman, H.
Homer, John
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Boston, Terence
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Richard, Ivor


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boyden, James
Howie, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Braddock, Mrs. E, M.
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Sheldon, Robert


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Short, Rt. Hn. E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)]
Skeffington, Arthur


Chapman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Snow, Julian


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Spriggs, Leslie


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Stones, William


Crawshaw, Richard
Lawson, George
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swingler, Stephen


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Symonds, J. B.


Darling, George
Lomas, Kenneth
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, Nell
Tinn, James


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, J.
Tomney, Frank


Delargy, Hugh
MacDermot, Niall
Tuck, Raphael


Dell, Edmund
Mclnnes, James
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Manuel, Archie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
Mapp, Charles
Watkins, Tudor


Dunnett, Jack
Mayhew, Christopher
Weitzman, David


Ensor, David
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Evans, Albert (Islington, s. w.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Whitlock, William


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Murray, Albert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stan
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Floud, Bernard
Norwood, Christopher
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foley, Maurice
Oakes, Gordon
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Ogden, Eric
Zilliacus, K.


Freeson, Reginald
O'Malley, Brian



Galpern, Sir Myer
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, W. E.
Orme, Stanley
Mrs. Harriet Slater and




Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. Bennett: We have discussed the detailed provisions of the Clause and have not had very satisfactory answers. One point which gives me a great deal more concern and alarm in connection with the Bill than has yet been brought out is the problem of how we are to know that these increases will be received by those entitled to them. As we came into the Chamber this afternoon—those of us who came in at the beginning—we came across a document published by the Treasury, the Department of which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Financial Secretary is so distinguished an ornament, which says:
The arrangements previously announced are cancelled in respect of Rhodesia in regard to travel, wages and salaries, and contractual payments such as pensions, interest and dividends.
It goes on to say:
So far as Her Majesty's Government itself is concerned, money due to residents of Rhodesia for pensions or interest on Government Stocks will be held back for the time being, and will be released as soon as normal relations can be resumed. British firms and others with similar obligations to Rhodesia are advised to adopt a similar procedure.
It was only on 18th November, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) about pensioners resident in Rhodesia and he replied:
It is intended that pensioners who are covered by the Bill and who are resident in Rhodesia should continue to receive their pensions and to receive the increases under the Bill. The machinery is likely to be that a Rhodesia account will be established in London. Pension paying Departments should send payable orders which can be drawn on this account, direct to the pensioners through the post. The pensioners will then, we hope, be able to cash the orders at their local banks, which will clear the transaction with the account in London, and appropriate instructions are being issued to the pension paying Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 18th November, 965 Vol. 720, c. 1464.]
I was shocked by this new turn of events, but I am sure that I and other hon. Members were nothing like so shocked as the would-be recipients of Government pensions in Rhodesia this afternoon.
It seems to me that they are being left absolutely to sink. Surely this is not the way in which to apply a Pensions (Increase) Bill. These are now being with-

held indefinitely from people who, by definition, live on only small regular weekly or monthly contributions. What steps is the hon. and learned Gentleman taking to see that these pensions are paid to these people and not cancelled or withheld indefinitely? He is responsible for the sustenance of these pensioners. He and his colleagues are responsible and nobody else. Only he can give us the assurance we require.

Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Member has raised the question—

Mr. Price: On a point of order. Before the Financial Secretary replies to the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), I would ask whether it is in order for the hon. Member to raise this matter in the way he has just done. There is no reference whatever, I would submit, on the rules of order which cover this debate, that a British citizen, whether he is resident in this country or in any part of the world, can lose his civil rights for almost all reasons, for a multiplicity of reasons, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will very quickly explain to the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am making this submission now on a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are not."] Of course. The Chairman will tell me when I am out of order, not hon. Members opposite. I am making a serious submission to the Chair that the point raised, with the special provisions announced today by the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—would have been within the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman if he had been in the House when the Prime Minister was speaking. I submit that this is quite out of order and that the debate ought not to be allowed to continue.

Sir Douglas Glover: Further to that point of order. Surely this must be in order. The increases in these pensions presumably would go to people in Rhodesia, but under the Government's embargo they will not get the money. It must be in order to debate this matter.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: Further to that point of order. Surely the question would arise in connection with anyone in one of Her Majesty's prisons, and we should not be entitled to raise that in the debate. This must be out of order.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Roderic Bowen): I was in some doubt whether the hon. Member for Gosport and Fare-ham (Dr. Bennett) was in order in raising the matter. He asked for information, and apparently the Financial Secretary is willing and ready to help the Committee in this respect. In those circumstances I allowed him to raise the matter, and I call upon the Financial Secretary to reply.

Mr. MacDermot: This is a point of interest to the Committee and I expected to be asked the question in the course of the evening. I am prepared to answer it.
The hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) raised the question of the position of public service pensioners resident in Rhodesia. On Second Reading I told the House what was then our intention and hope, which was that pensioners resident in Rhodesia would continue to receive their pensions. I described the procedure which would enable them to do so. Since then, as the hon. Member knows, there have been serious developments in Rhodesia, as a result of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement this afternoon referring to a number of financial measures, in addition to other measures, which are being taken. One of them is that we are introducing measures which go further than those previously in operation and a stop is being placed on practically all current payments by United Kingdom residents to residents of Rhodesia. This will apply to the payment of pensions by Her Majesty's Government.
There is no question of the obligation to pay these pensions being repudiated, but it cannot be fulfilled in present circumstances. I hope that hon. Members and those who are entitled to these pensions will realise where the blame lies for that fact. The money which is due to residents of Rhodesia for pensions will be held back for the time being and will be released as soon as normal relations can be resumed with Rhodesia.

Mr. Peter Walker: We take the strongest objection to the statement which the Financial Secretary has just made. He said that we know where the blame lies. The facts of the situation were exactly the same on 18th November when the Financial Secretary with the authority of the Government, stated on Second Read-

ing that public service pensioners resident in Rhodesia would receive their pensions. There are resident in Rhodesia a number of people who have served their country well and who are depending for their livelihood on pensions received from this Government—people who may well be completely out of sympathy with and opposed to the present régime in Rhodesia. The Government have now decided to cut off their means of livelihood. I consider this to be an absolute scandal and I plead with the Government to think again.

Sir D. Glover: I endorse entirely what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). I can think of nothing more likely to harden white opinion in Rhodesia against this country than the action which has been taken by the Government.
9.45 p.m.
We will drive an enormous number of reasonable people—because reasonable people are very much affected by their personal circumstances—in Rhodesia into taking a different attitude because many of those people who are probably at this moment anti-Smith and anti the present administration there will find that their incomes are cut off by Her Majesty's Government. They will become anti-British, and this will lend support to Smith's régime in Rhodesia. I therefore ask the Government to think again, because this is the biggest mistake they have made in a very difficult situation.

Mr. Gower: Is not the Financial Secretary appalled by the inhumanity of this decision? [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may groan, but I assure them that this is inhuman. Some of the people we are discussing are extremely elderly—at the very last years of their lives—and no payment deferred can ever compensate them for payment which will now be stopped. Can it really be suggested that the cause of trying to bring Rhodesia back into—

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I submit to you Mr. Bowen, that we are at the moment technically debating the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. There is no mention in Clause 1 of Rhodesia and, therefore, in any respectful submission to the Chair, all this discussion is entirely out of order and you should stop it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Further to that point of order. Provision is made in Clause 1 for the payment of certain increases in pensions. We are asking, I submit legitimately, whether these increases are to be paid to the pensioners to whom we are referring. We were shocked to hear from the Financial Secretary that they are not to be paid to some pensioners living in Rhodesia and I therefore submit that we have a perfect right to raise this matter.

Captain W. Elliot: Further to that point of order. While I do not wish to make your position any more difficult, Mr. Bowen, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) pointed out, we are discussing an increase for public service pensioners. When a public servant enters his service he does so under certain conditions. These are clearly laid down and he accepts them. It now appears, quite arbitrarily, that those conditions can be changed. Would it be in order to call for the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General to clarify this point?

The Deputy Chairman: I have already ruled that it is in order to discuss the arrangements in regard to the payment of pensions, in this instance in Rhodesia. However, I am not going to allow this debate to widen its scope to a discussion of the whole merits of sanctions in Rhodesia or the pension element in those sanctions.

Mr. Gower: I will keep strictly to the matter at hand, namely, the pensions which are paid to persons who happen to be resident in Rhodesia. I plead with the Financial Secretary to reflect that some of these persons are in Rhodesia merely because they have gone to live with their next of kin, perhaps people younger than themselves. Is it not incredible that a responsible British Government could take this, I repeat, inhuman action?
I sincerely hope that, after careful reconsideration, the position as described by the Financial Secretary will be altered. The cause which the Government and the Prime Minister have professed and for which they have enjoyed a generous measure of support in all parts of the House throughout these long discussions will not be served by a measure of sheer cruelty of this kind.

Mr. MacDermot: As hon. Members know, the measures which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon and which have been published from the Treasury only this afternoon have not yet been the subject of debate or discussion in the House. I do not know what arrangements could be made, and it may be that the House will want an opportunity to consider these measures and their effects in many ways, apart from this one.
I was asked, as a sheer question of information, what would be the effect of these measures on the small number of pensioners covered by this Bill who are resident in Rhodesia. I have answered that question and, with great respect, I am not in a position to debate this matter any further. I have given the House all the information that is in my possession, and no doubt an opportunity will arise to debate this subject if need be.
I would point out that what we are now considering is the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. The Clause provides that those people should be entitled to certain increases. If hon. Members do not want the people in question to be entitled to this increase, they can vote against the Clause, but we are providing that they shall be entitled to the increase. I have given information on what will he the effect of these arrangements in regard to the receiving of immediate payment. The moneys will be held for the pensioners, and we hope to pay it to them as soon as possible.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I have been amazed by some of the speeches from the other side of the Committee. We all have tremendous sympathy with these pensioners in Rhodesia, but I understand that the pensions due to them, plus the increases, will be credited to an account in London. I feel sure that the banking authorities in Rhodesia, and the present régime there, will feel very strongly about these poor people. I have no doubt that those authorities have tremendous faith in the ability of the British Government and British people and are sure that the problem will be resolved. They can, therefore, pay out the pensions in Rhodesian £s with the assurance that when things return to normal and law and order is restored they can claim on the account in London.

Captain W. Elliot: On a point of order, Mr. Bowen, I am sorry to delay the proceedings of the Committee, but here, in the one hand, I have a Bill which says that pension increases are to be given to certain categories of public servants while, in the other hand, I have a piece of paper from the Vote Office which says that a certain category of public servants is not to receive the increases. I am in a quandary about what it means. Can all the provisions of this Bill be null and void because a piece of paper like this is issued?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Roderic Bowen): That is not a point of Order. I have already allowed the discussion on the merits or the demerits of stopping the payment of pensions to people in Rhodesia to become distinctly wide. This debate should not develop into a general discussion of the merits or demerits of that action.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(POWER TO PROVIDE INCREASED BENEFITS FOR PERSONS SUBJECT TO APPROVED SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES.)

Mr. MacDermot: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 11, at the end to insert:
or by some other authority to whom that local authority are, or are deemed in accordance with the regulations to be, the successor.
This is a technical Amendment to improve the drafting of one point. The Clause is designed to provide appropriate benefits for pensioners in approved schemes like the F.S.S.U. and the F.S.S.N. whose pensions are paid, not by the authority employing them, but by the insurance company to which the employing company pays the employer's contribution. Paragraph (ii) of subsection (2,b) enables the appropriate Minister to make regulations empowering local authorities to pay the appropriate benefits to former members of those schemes who have been employed by them but, as drafted, the paragraph does not cover the case where the pensioner was employed by a local authority that has since ceased to exist or has had its employing function transferred to another local authority.
The question obviously arises in the case of people formerly employed by the London County Council and now with the Greater London Council. It is obviously desirable that these people should be covered, so the Amendment provides that the regulations may empower a local authority to provide, not only for its own ex-employees but also for the ex-employees of another authority of which it is, or is deemed to be for this purpose, the successor.

Mr. Cole: There are some mysterious words between the two commas in the Amendment. Surely if the successor to a local authority is another local authority it is a matter of fact, not of regulation. In any case of doubt, which are the regulations which will determine it? What happens if someone is disaffected? To whom will he have to apply, to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government or to the Treasury? It seems that in clarifying this matter a host of rather mysterious points have been raised. The provision says, "are…the successor" and "or are deemed…to be". Who will be the final authority to decide the successorship under the regulations, and what will the regulations be?

Mr. MacDermot: In a case where it is clear as a matter of fact which authority succeeds which authority, no question arises. The purpose of the words between the commas is to clear up a case where there might be lack of clarity as to which authority has succeeded. One may take the case of the Greater London Council displacing the former London County Council. Not all the functions of the former have been transferred to the new body, for some have been transferred to the London boroughs. In some cases there might be difficulty in deciding which should be the authority.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) asked who should decide. The answer is, "the appropriate authority". In this case it would be either the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or in Scotland, the Secretary of State. He would decide by making regulations. It is to cover precisely that kind of case that we have added the words between the commas.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO PREVIOUS INCREASES)

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 11, at the end to insert:
(a) in paragraph (a) of section 3(2) (which restricts payment of a supplement to a person who is certified as having been an overseas officer in relation to any territory in or for which any services giving rise to the pension were rendered) at the end there shall be added the words "or, in any other case, as having been an overseas officer who being a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies is subsequent to retirement on pension resident in the United Kingdom".
This Amendment relates to officers of the overseas service. The point is a fairly narrow one, and I hope the Committee will bear with me while I explain an injustice which I seek to put right.
Previously when Parliament has legislated on the question of pensions, as in the 1962 Act, it has always been the decision to exclude from pensions supplements such as are provided for in this Bill local officers of an overseas territory. I understand that local officers are officers who are citizens of the territory concerned or of a contiguous territory, persons who have been borne and bred in that territory although later they may become officers of another overseas service in the service of the Crown. The officers concerned are intended to share the fortunes of their countrymen after they have retired from overseas service. Those words:
intended to share the fortunes of their countrymen
are taken from a letter I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development to explain why these officers are excluded from pensions supplements.
The reason is that in one country there may be inflation and in another country deflation. There would be differing economic circumstances and it would be clearly wrong to apply the pensions increases applicable to the United Kingdom to people who might live in any country in the Commonwealth and thereby have different circumstances. The Committee will agree that local officers should not get the increments payable under the Bill, but there is a difficulty. I admit that it is a particular case. It is the case of people classified as local

officers although in fact they are genuinely—

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Pensions (Increase) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Oram.]

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Ridley: As I was saying, there is a difficulty with overseas officers who are British citizens. The distinction has been drawn, and quite correctly according to the legal interpretation between a man who is born in the United Kingdom and serves as an overseas officer abroad and a man who is born in overseas territory and is brought up and serves there and at a later stage retires to live in the United Kingdom. This distinction is quite artificial. It is purely the accident of where a man is born.
One could take two perfectly normal British families. One has had children and brought them up in the United Kingdom and later one of the children is recruited into the overseas service and eventually he is eligible for the supplement. Another family may happen to have been sojourning in a Commonwealth country and a child is born and brought up for a few years in that country, but when, after distinguished overseas service, he comes to retire he finds that he is not eligible for supplement even though he is resident in the United Kingdom. Surely it is not the circumstances of a man's birth but of his retirement that should determine this. If a man retires in the United Kingdom, he should be eligible for the supplement which the Bill provides.
I am not suggesting that all such officers should be eligible to receive the supplements in successive pension Bills. That is not the object. The intention


of the Amendment is that those who retire to live in this country should be eligible, whereas those who retire not to live in this country should not be eligible.
The Amendment seeks to put right this anomaly. If the Parliamentary Secretary for Overseas Development feels that this is a new departure, I must tell him that there is a precedent in the Government's own Bill for making a distinction between a person who is resident in the United Kingdom and the person who is not. In subsection (5,a(i)), of the very Clause which I seek to amend, there is a distinction drawn between the pensioner resident in the United Kingdom and the one who is not. The hon. Gentleman therefore will not be able to argue that this is a new departure in pension legislation.

Mr. J. T. Price: In advancing this argument, will the hon. Member take into consideration that British citizens permanently expatriate from this country who have decided for good reasons to live in a foreign country, or in an overseas territory of the British Commonwealth, after two years' absence from this country are no longer liable to United Kingdom taxation? I suggest, therefore, that this is one of the very good reasons why this exclusion is made. They may be in territory where there is practically no taxation at all.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. I am talking about servants of the Crown who come back to live in this country and who pay United Kingdom Income Tax on their incomes. If we have power in this House to put up the rates of Income Tax, as he and his right hon. Friends have done, we must surely have power to put up the rates of pension to cover the inflation which his wretched Government have caused.
To return to my argument, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what the cost of adopting the Amendment would be. My impression is that it would be very small and that very few people would be concerned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us the number of officers involved. But, whatever the answer to that question may be, I hope that he will accept the Amendment because it

is not fair to draw this distinction between those who have the misfortune to have been born and brought up in a different part of the world but who suffer the same hardship from inflation when they come to retire here and those fortunate enough, by the circumstances of their birth, to be protected by such Measures as this.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. Albert E. Oram): I should first point out to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that for the purpose of achieving his object the Amendment has a drafting weakness. I do not rest my case on a drafting weakness. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I propose to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment on other grounds, but I think that it will be helpful if I explain what I regard as the weakness.
The Amendment refers to "overseas officer", and this, in the context of the 1962 Act, means an overseas officer in relation to the territory from which the pension is derived. Therefore, the Amendment would not extend the scope of the Bill at all, because overseas officers so defined are already covered by the provisions of the original Act and would be covered by this amending Bill.
The hon. Gentleman has explained his purpose and, as he said, we have been in correspondence about a particular case in his constituency. He seeks to cover certain pensioners of overseas Governments who were, as he rightly said, locally recruited officers and, more than that, officers indigenous to the overseas territory, that is, people who were born in the overseas territory or domiciled there, who served in that overseas territory and who then, upon retirement, have chosen to come to live in this country. He bases his case on the fact that they are now living here and should therefore, so he argues, benefit from the increases.
This is quite contrary, as, I think, the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, to the principles upon which these pensions matters were intended to be administered and have been administered in the past. The British Government have always accepted responsibility in respect of supplements for those who were recruited to serve Colonial Governments under arrangements for which the Secretary of


State for the Colonies has been responsible. This means expatriate officers. It does not mean, never has meant and never was intended to mean pensioners of purely local origin. We feel firmly that this distinction between expatriates and local officers is a right one which the House would be well advised to maintain.
The hon. Gentleman advanced the point—he said he was quoting from a letter which I had sent him—that local officers must expect to follow the fortunes of their own country and receive pensions and pension increases which their own Government are prepared to grant to them, and that if they decide to live elsewhere, in this country or anywhere else, they must accept their responsibility for it. What is at issue here is not the circumstances in which they choose to live, but whose responsibility it is for paying the pensions or for increasing the pension in relation to new circumstances. In the case of the category of pensioners which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, the responsibility is that not of the British Government but of the overseas Government. Therefore, I advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the matter deeply enough. He says that one should follow the fortunes of one's own country. That envisages that everyone has a country of origin and is always going to be there, that their ancestors have always done so and that they themselves intend to stay there all the time. But during the last 10 years we have seen a great many changes, and some rather remarkable ones, and all of us must have constituents who find that they are nationals of countries to which sometimes they have hardly ever been. I believe that it is arguable that I am an Egyptian, because I was certainly born in Egypt. I believe that it could be argued that unless I had taken proper steps which I have taken, to ensure that I was not an Egyptian, I might now be one—and perhaps I shall be again one of these days.
I had a letter last week from an Englishman constituent of mine who lives in South Africa, and he has just discovered to his surprise that he is a Maltese because he happened to be born

in Malta when his parents were briefly stationed there. In those circumstances, it really does not reflect the changes which have taken place in the British Commonwealth to say that if a locally enlisted person chooses to live in this country, which is not, after all, his own country, he cannot accept an increase of pension. He has accepted the obligations to pay tax here. He may come of entirely British stock, but have this incidental and for-the-time-being nationality—which in some cases can be changed—and find himself in an equivocal position.
There must be very many families in this country which finds themselves in this position. As they are in every respect similar to colleagues who worked in the service side by side, did exactly the same service, put in the same number of years and received the same pay, I think that the Government ought now to accept that as they are living here and have the obligation to pay tax here they should also have the right to receive the increment.

Mr. Ridley: The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question about the cost of granting the concessions. He has not told us the number of people concerned. He said he would not base his answer on the drafting error which I freely admit is in my Amendment, and I am glad that that is not the issue between us. The hon. Gentleman then went on to extend no convincing reason as to why the point of principle I raised was not acceptable to the Government. The Committee has not been given a proper answer. He should supply an answer to the major point about cost that I put to him and on which he has not attempted to satisfy the Committee, the country at large and those concerned.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Oram: I am sorry that I omitted to reply to the point about cost. I have not the information here and I suspect that it would be next to impossible to find out the cost that would be involved. We do not know how many people who receive pensions from other Governments and are not the responsibility of this Government are living here or what their circumstances are. I doubt whether the information could be readily available but


if it can be obtained without disproportionate effort I will get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) raised a rather different argument which I am sure, on reflection, he will realise is not a proper principle upon which to operate pension payments. He referred to people of British stock. To start legislating in terms of pensions according to race or stock rather than by the clearly laid down principles accepted by previous Governments as well as this one would be difficult and undesirable.

Mr. Kershaw: But it is not a question of "stock". The hon. Gentleman says, in effect, that if these people choose to live here they must accept a certain penalty. But they do not live here because they have some vicious idea in mind but because their families have always lived here and they have been brought up here and therefore it is natural for them to live here, despite the accident of birth.

Mr. Oram: But how would they be distinguished from anyone who was a locally recruited officer overseas? It would open the door to every possible person overseas who decided to come here to live being subject to pensions increases at the responsibility of the British taxpayer. This is a path along which it would not be wise to proceed.

Mr. Ridley: The Parliamentary Secretary does not know how many people would be involved, so how does he know that this would open the door to a flood of them coming here? I suspect that only a few hundred people are involved. If he knows no more about this subject than he has shown tonight, I hope that he will move to report progress to consider this matter before we proceed further with the Bill.

Mr. Henry Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary is a man for whom the Committee can have considerable pity, for he is a man who is dealing with a situation which has been built up by a series of precedents and traditions over several hundred years. He is trying to cut through all that and produce a law which is basically equitable and just. But in this Clause he has miserably failed

to do so. He is in exactly the position of a man who says, "I cannot describe an elephant, but I know one when I see one".
There is all the difference in the world between an officer of British stock who had every intention of returning to this country on retirement, although he may have been born in Kashmir or Egypt or Timbuctoo, and, to use an old-fashioned phrase, a native officer recruited locally who throughout his service considered that he would probably return to the country where he was first employed. The Parliamentary Secretary and his draftsmen have had considerable difficulty finding an equitable differentiation between the two.
But their time and patience have been wasted, because a man who has served Her Majesty is entitled to a pension according to the country where he may have to live. If one had served Her Majesty as an overseas officer—although "overseas officer" is a modern definition—it was always assumed that on retirement one would come to this country and live here and one's pension was calculated on that basis and the previous Acts, weak though they were, made their calculations on that basis. A native officer, locally recruited to the service, had his pension and other rights calculated on the basis that he would retire to the country in which he was born and where he had served. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule and that is exactly where the Government have failed.
The Government have failed to find a solution to the problem of drafting a provision for the officer whose mother was born in Kashmir and whose father was born in Cawnpore and whose grandfather was born in Egypt and whose great grandfather was born in Malta and who has no right to a British passport, but who is still a British officer—and there are hundreds throughout the country—and who to all intents and purposes is recognised by any ordinary man as a subject of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. I doubt whether any differentiation is necessary in such a case.
If he and his father and grandfather and other ancestors have served in Tanganyika, the overseas country I know best, and the officer in question happens


to find that Tanganyika is now an unpleasant place in which to live and feels that the United Kingdom will suit his feelings better, and if he has served Her Majesty in exactly the same way as the man whose ancestors were born in Cawnpore, is it worth trying to find a definition between the two? The Bill certainly does not provide a clear distinction between any such officer who decides to retire to the United Kingdom and the officer who has become an overseas officer and loyally served Her Majesty overseas and then decided to retire to Cheltenham.
The number of native officers retiring to this country is comparatively few and the cost of this proposal to the Treasury would be extraordinarily small, and yet the hardship suffered by officers who cannot prove that they are full United Kingdom officers but who are recruited locally, although to all intents and purposes they are of British stock, is considerable.
I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary is suffering under the pressure of Parliamentary draftsmen and civil servants. If he had any guts he would cut the cackle and would say that those people who served Her Majesty's Government loyally in our overseas territories, and who are now living in this country are entitled to a pension which would stand up to the steadily increasing cost of living which we are suffering under a Labour Government.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 35, to leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs".

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): I think it would be convenient if we also took Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 42, at end insert:
7. A pension in respect of service under a local authority or other statutory body in any overseas territory, which service was by the provisions of any law, deemed to be "other public service" for the purposes of any law for the grant of pensions to persons serving under the Government of such territory.

Mr. Turton: This is a paving Amendment for the insertion of the new paragraph in Amendment No. 9. The pensioners who are covered by this Amend-

ment are those who were recruited either through the Colonial Office or the Crown Agents for service under local authorities or statutory bodies in the Colonies. The majority of them served in the West Coast of Africa and they were specifically excluded from any municipal superannuation scheme. It was specially provided under the laws of the Colony that they should be pensioned under the same laws and on the same terms as those applying to Government officers. For this purpose the law also provided that the local authority service was "other public service" under the pension laws, thus facilitating transferability to and from Government service.
It was specifically laid down that these people should be treated for pension purposes on a complete parallel with Government officers. Now, under the Pension Increases Acts those who were in the Government service overseas are entitled to the increases under this Act of 2 per cent. to 16 per cent., but these local government officers are completely excluded from any increase, save for certain groups. The exceptions are those who were recruited before 1st April, 1930, for service in Achimota College. They are brought into the Pensions (Increase) Bill. But those who were recruited on and after 2nd April, 1930, are excluded.
In addition, under this Bill those who were members of an auxiliary or special police force are now being brought in. I suggest to the Committee that this is a manifest injustice to these others. There are not many and the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt have the figures. I know them fairly accurately. There are six from Lagos Town Council, two from Kumassi Town Council, and a certain number from Takoradi. The numbers and the amount are not great but the injustice to these people is tremendous.
The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this is not our responsibility, that the local government officers in England are covered by this Bill, and the responsibility is that of local government. If he were to say that here the responsibility is not that of the British Government but of the local government overseas, to pay this increase, he is in this difficulty. Under the terms of their recruitment they are subject to the same pension laws and conditions as a Government officer.
When, under the Pensions (Increase) Act, Nigeria and Ghana were told that the British Government would be responsible for the increase in pensions, they were freed from the liability to pay the increase to the whole group of those who were on like pension terms, both Government and local government servants. It is, therefore, not possible to argue that Nigeria or Ghana should pay this increase. The Pensions (Increase) Act removed this liability from them, because these people were recruited by the Crown Agents and the Colonial Office under the specific condition that they would be treated under the same terms. This is the difficulty, and this is why these most unfortunate people have been subsisting without any increase at all in their pensions.
10.30 p.m.
It is hard enough for them, but it is very much harder for the widows. Of those of whom I have spoken are a number of widows whose husbands served on the Lagos Town Council. During their lifetime these men contributed specifically for pensions for their widows, on the understanding that their widows would be treated on the same basis as the widows of Government servants. Now we find that as a result of this anomaly in the Act the widows of local government officers have had no increase at all, whereas the widows of Government officers have had an increase.
Although this is not a matter which involves a large number of people, it is an anomaly that we should correct. The amount involved is probably not more than £50,000, in the judgment of those for whom I speak. I do not, therefore, think that it would put a great burden on this country to remedy this admitted injustice.
The previous Government said—and I am sure that the present Government accept this responsibility—that if Ghana, or Nigeria, or any other country, repudiated liability for the payment of pensions they would honour the pension rights of overseas pensioners, but these local government servants, recruited under the same terms and conditions as Government officers, are not covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act. Therefore, if an overseas Government were to repudiate their liability to pay pensions, there would be

no remedy for these wretched pensioners or their widows. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that by remedying this injustice he will give these people the security which they so urgently need. I hope that the Government will look with favour on this small but very necessary Amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Dean: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has said, and I rise to speak on behalf of one other category of people who also feel a great sense of injustice at the moment. I am referring to the staff at the University College of Freetown, Sierra Leone, who were appointed under the 1950 Ordinance. They feel that they have been badly misled by the British Government with regard to their pension position.
The main point, as they put it is me, is that in Ordinances 1 and 2 of 1950, and also in the Widows and Orphans Pension Ordinance, the Secretary of State went out of his way to say that the staff at the University College would be treated like other public servants. They were told that they would be deemed to be in the public service, and they were obliged to join the pension scheme and the widows' and orphans' scheme.
Many of them relied on this and did not join the United Kingdom National Insurance Scheme, because they felt that they were adequately covered. But they now find that they have not the same pension rights as other public servants and that the Pensions (Increase) Acts do not apply to them. I gave notice to the Financial Secretary that I intended to raise this point and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to deal with this comparatively small number of people who also labour under a sense of injustice in this matter.

Mr. Oram: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), as we would expect, argued his case with great persuasiveness, and pointed to the relative injustice to people on one side of the demarcation line by comparison with those on the other. He will recognise that it is a familiar argument in all spheres of public administration that wherever we draw the line, or set a date, there are those who are unfortunate


and about whom many speeches of pathos can be made.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to determine where the line should be drawn according to proper principles. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's speech did not attempt to attack—it certainly did not undermine—the central principle underlying the 1962 Act, which is that pensions increases apply to those pensioners who have been in Crown service, and that this is the vital distinction which we maintain, as against the proposal in his Amendment that people other than those in Crown service should get the benefit of these increases.
This principle has been maintained by successive Secretaries of State, not only in relation to pension matters but in other matters such as compensation, and when they have been urged to intervene in respect of other terms of service it has consistently been argued that the essential distinction that must be drawn is between those who are in Crown service and those who are not. It is for that reason that I am not able to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's plea to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Tinton: I want to be clear on the point that the hon. Member has made. The Bill deals with those employed not only by the Crown but by local government. In fact, the very Clause which I was seeking to amend deals with people who have not been employed by the Crown but employed by Achimota College and by many local authorities and other authorities, and who are not Crown servants. I am not clear about the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Oram: In relation to Achimota College we have maintained exactly the principle that I am referring to about Crown service. It is the very reason for that unfortunate date in 1930 to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Those who were appointed previously to that date were in Crown service and those who were appointed after it were not. So the distinction there, unfortunate though it is in respect of those pensioners who happen to have been appointed to the same college after 1930, is one which we have thought it proper and highly important to maintain.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that only a few people are con-

cerned. He would be right in maintaining that, in local government terms. However, I would point out that once this principle is breached, others apply. It is not a question simply of local authority employees but of employees of other statutory bodies. Once this has been embarked upon, the repercussions are considerable and the expense is very great indeed. This is another reason why we insist that it is proper to maintain the distinction between Crown service and other service.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) raised the question of the staff of Fourah Bay College in Sierra Leone, and I acknowledge his courtesy in letting us know that he would raise this point. He will know that we have had considerable correspondence—whether with him or not I do not know, but certainly with others—on this point, and I must insist that the position of this group of people is quite clear that in relation to the principle of Crown service which I have explained. The Fourah Bay staff are not covered by the 1962 Act, because they are not employees of the Sierra Leone Government and are not in the service of the Crown.
It is true, that from the point of view of calculating their pensions, they are treated as public officers for Sierra Leone pensions purposes, but that does not grant them the right to supplementation other than such supplements as arise out of decisions by the Sierra Leone Government itself. It does not entitled them to benefit under the provisions of successive Pensions (Increase) Acts in this country.
For these reasons, once again I have to advise the Committee that the Amendment is not acceptable to us.

Mr. H. Clark: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, could he tell us why Pensions (Increase) Acts in this country generally apply to local authorities in this country who have to meet the bills for the pensions, but the same Acts do not apply to local authorities in overseas territories, who therefore do not have to meet the bill?

Mr. Oram: Local authorities in this country are responsible to the law in this country. We in this House legislate in respect of local authorities and we accept responsibility in that way. But the same does not apply to overseas


governments, who have their own laws, and where the local authorities are subject to the central governments. There is a distinction.

Mr. H. Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary will agree, I am sure, that the inability of the House of Commons to legislate for the local authorities in overseas territories does not absolve the House from its responsibility to pay decent pensions to people who have given decent service.

Mr. Peter Walker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made out a very strong case for the Amendment, and I

am surprised the Parliamentary Secretary gave no indication of the numbers involved. My right hon. Friend pointed out it was a very small number. The Parliamentary Secretary used the argument that perhaps the number of those covered by statutory bodies was larger, but he gave no indication of the numbers involved. It is a real moral responsibility of the British Government that these people are in a bad plight at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend will press the matter to a division.

Question put, That "paragraph" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 123.

Division No. 8.]
AYES
[10.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.
O'Malley, Brian


Albu, Austen
Garrow, A.
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourlay, Harry
Orme, Stanley


Alldritt, Walter
Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Padley, Walter


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Pavitt, Laurence


Barnett, Joel
Harper, Joseph
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Popplewell, Ernest


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hazell, Bert
Prentice, R. E.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Binns, John
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Horner, John
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Randall, Harry


Boardman, H.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rees, Merlyn


Boston, Terence
Howie, W.
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Boyden, James
Hoy, James
Richard, Ivor


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brown, Rt. Hn. Ceorge (Belper)
Jackson, Colin
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Sheldon, Robert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Johnson, James(K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Chapman, Donald
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Conlan, Bernard
Lawson, George
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Swingler, Stephen


Crawshaw, Richard
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Symonds, J. B.


Cronin, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Darling, George
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Tinn, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
McBride, Neil
Tomney, Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McCann, J.
Tuck, Raphael


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacDermot, Niall
Urwin, T. W.


Delargy, Hugh
Mclnnes, James
Varley, Eric G.


Dell, Edmund
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Dempsey, James
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Doig, Peter
Manuel, Archie
Watkins, Tudor


Driberg, Tom
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Mayhew, Christopher
Wellbeloved, James


Dunn, James A.
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Dunnett, Jack
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ensor, David
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Murray, Albert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hltchin)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stan
Zilliacus, K.


Floud, Bernard
Norwood, Christopher



Freeson, Reginald
Oakes, Gordon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Ogden, Eric
Mrs. Harriet Slater and




Mr. Alan Fitch.




Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Miscampbell, Norman


Anstruther-Cray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Foster, Sir John
Mitchell, David


Astor, John
Gardner, Edward
More, Jasper


Atkins, Humphrey
Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K.
Gower, Raymond
Onslow, Cranley


Balniel, Lord
Grant, Anthony
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Peel, John


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Peyton, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gurden, Harold
Pounder, Rafton


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Box, Donald
Hawkins, Paul
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Roots, William


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig, Sir John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Stainton, Keith


Buxton, Ronald
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stodart, Anthony


Chataway, Christopher
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Temple, John M.


Cooke, Robert
Kilfedder, James A.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walder, David (High Peak)


Dean, Paul
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Longbottom, Charles
Weatherill, Bernard


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Whitelaw, William


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Eden, Sir John
MacArthur, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mackie, George V. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Wise, A. R.


Elliott, R. W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, W. F. M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Emery, Peter
Maginnis, John E.



Errington, Sir Eric
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Mr. Dudley Smith and




Mr. Ian Frazer.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: At this stage, I only want to say one sentence, which is to thank hon. Members in all quarters of the House for their co-operation in giving this Bill a speedy passage. Provided that it does not return from another place, which I think is unlikely, this is the

final stage of a Measure which, as we all know, enables these pensions increases to take effect from 1st January next, provided that it is passed before Christmas, which I think, with the co-operation of hon. Members, it will do.

Mr. Peter Walker: I should like to express the thanks of this side to the Financial Secretary for the courtesy he has shown throughout the Committee stage, and for the trouble he has taken. We certainly welcome this Bill's coming into operation, and look forward to the increases coming into effect on 1st January next.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Meat and Livestock Commission and make other provision for matters connected with agriculture, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any sums into the Exchequer and the making of the payments out of money provided by Parliament and out of the Consolidated Fund set out below.
A. Payments which may be made out of money provided by Parliament—

1.—(1) Payments by way of grant to meet up to half of expenditure incurred in connection with the carrying out of amalgamations of agricultural land and the reshaping of agricultural units, but excluding expenditure on the acquisition of land;

(2) Payments by way of loan, and payments to fulfil guarantees of any loan, made to meet expenditure incurred in connection with the carrying out of amalgamations of agricultural land and the reshaping of agricultural units;

(3) Payments to meet expenditure incurred by the Ministers or the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland in and in connection with the acquisition, holding, management and disposal of land for the purpose of effecting amalgamations of agricultural land and the reshaping of agricultural units, including transactions involving loss;

2. Payments by way of grant (including annuities) to, for, or in respect of, individuals who relinquish occupation of agricultural land;

3. Payments by way of grant towards the cost of improvements for the benefit of agricultural land, including hill land, but so that—

(a) a grant towards the cost of an improvement which is not for the benefit of hill land shall not exceed one quarter of that cost,
(b) the grants towards the cost of improvements which are not for the benefit of hill land, with the grants made under sections 12 and 16 of the Agriculture Act 1957 (farm improvements and amalgamations), shall not altogether exceed £170 million;

4. Payments by way of grant in connection with the carrying out of proposals relating to any form of co-operation or mutual assistance in agriculture (including horticulture), including proposals made and approved before the passing of the Act;

5. Payments by way of grant to persons who fulfil guarantees of loans for any business concerned with agriculture (including horticulture), but so that the grants paid in any period of twelve months beginning with 1st April, together with the grants paid in that period under section 9 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964 (guarantees of bank loans to horticulture businesses), shall not exceed, for the period ending 31st March 1967, £700,000, and for any subsequent period

£900,000, and those limits shall replace the limits in subsection (2) of the said section 9;

6. Payments in respect of the keeping of records of any farm business, including grants payable by reference to arrangements made by the Ministers before the passing of the Act;

7. Payments falling to be made out of money provided by Parliament in consequence of—

(a) amending the Agriculture (Calf Subsidies) Act 1952,
(b) amending section 12 of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (which authorises the Minister to carry out improvements for the benefit of hill farming land subject to rights of common),
(c) making section 13 of the Hill Farming Act 1946 (subsidies for hill sheep and cattle) permanent,
(d) extending the maximum period which may be specified in a scheme under section 10(1) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963 (winter keep grants),
(e) extending section 4 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 (expenditure for eradication of disease) to poultry;

8. Payments to meet expenditure incurred by the Ministers in providing veterinary services to persons who carry on livestock businesses and participate in arrangements approved by the Ministers;

9.—(1) Remuneration, allowances and other payments to, for, or in respect of, members of the said Meat and Livestock Commission;

(2) Payments to meet expenditure incurred by the Commission in performing functions in connection with fatstock guaranteed prices, calf subsidies and the administration of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts and functions carried out at the request of the Ministers;

(3) Payments to meet the Commission's initial expenditure incurred in performing any other functions;

10. Payments to meet expenditure incurred in the performance of their functions by bodies established under the Act and concerned with rural development in hill and upland areas, or incurred by the Highlands and Islands Development Board in performing functions, corresponding to those conferred on those bodies;

11.—(1) Remuneration, allowances and other payments to, for, or in respect of, members of a Central Council or other body established by the Act and concerned with co-operation and mutual assistance in agriculture (including horticulture);

(2) Payments to meet expenditure incurred by that body in the performance of their functions;

12. Payments to meet administrative expenses incurred by any Minister;

B. Payments which may be made out of the Consolidated Fund—

Payments falling to be so made in consequence of—

(a) increasing from £5 million to £12 million the amount of the advances which may be made to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Ltd. under section 2 of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Act 1956 for the purpose of increasing its guarantee fund, and
(b) increasing from £425,000 to £2 million the amount of the advances which may be made to the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation under sections 2 and 8(b) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 for the like purpose;

In the provisions above "the Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State, or either of them.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I beg to move
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning (Industrial Development Certificates: Exemption) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1561), dated 6th August, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
As we do not have the full 90 minutes one might have hoped for in which to marshal' our arguments for saying that this Statutory Instrument should be annulled. I hope that we may have the co-operation of all hon. Members if, in speaking particularly briefly, I ask them to be equally brief in order that the matter can be discussed by as many as possible of those hon. Members who have genuine points to make.
We have put down this Prayer because we think that it must be a nonsense to reduce from 5,000 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. the area by which any industrial firm can expand. We believe that, basically, nothing will be achieved by the Government except a direct control of the expansion of industry in a manner which is entirely unhealthy. It must be very clearly realised that this provision will affect 60 per cent. of the population and over two-thirds of our firms. It is therefore a matter of very considerable importance, so I shall deal purely with the facts.
There are two ways in which this Statutory Instrument will affect factory ex-

pansion and the modernisation of industry and plant. Do the Government fully realise just how small an area 1,000 sq. ft. is? It is not enough to accommodate more than five lathes. I was consulting a firm in the Midlands only last week. It wanted to put in new packaging plant to enable it to increase its export trade. The firm needs double this amount of space for that equipment. I was told, "You know, when we have to go through all these procedures with the Board of Trade it makes us wonder whether the Government want us to take this action at all". I could give hundreds of examples on the factory expansion side of big industry.
On the other side, there is the really small firm which normally cannot afford to put money into the expansion of its own business and rents its factory. It can expand only by taking over some other new property which is usually built in small lots by a speculative builder. Let us be quite fair about this. Although hon. Members opposite condemn most of the time this form of speculative building it has been a godsend in producing factory space for small industry. The Government are entirely wrong in believing that by controlling factory expansion through this Order they will make it take place in specified parts of the country. In theory this sounds delightful, but in practice it does not work.
This is even more true in the case of small firms. They cannot afford to go elsewhere and they would be put completely out of business in many cases if they had to move from localities with which certain service industries are connected. One can think of some firms in the Midlands, for example, in the neighbourhood of Nottingham, with hundreds of thousands of square feet of factory space, which have to apply to the Ministry for permission to erect a bicycle shed or something equally small. I am only too willing to echo their complaint that this is the sort of control with which a Socialist Government have always been branded. It was expected that the present Government would have got away from that old form of control of industry, but they are now back to the old ways.
Why are parts of Lincolnshire included in this Order? The House will know that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gave notice way back in February of the possibility of this Order


of confusion if the Bill had been a being made, but there was no indication then that Lincolnshire would be included. Does its inclusion now mean that industries in that county will not have had the notice which has been given to everybody else?
How do the Government propose to use the retrospective powers in the Order? Does the House realise that it will be possible for the Government to apply its powers to a period before August, if planning permission had not been granted, although the Order was not laid until August? Can we have a direct statement from the Minister of State, Board of Trade that the Government have no intention of using the retrospective powers in that way? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me also how many extra applications for industrial development certificates are expected from industry to cover the very large amount of improvement which has been carried out in the last few years involving factory spaces of between 1,000 sq. ft. and 5,000 sq. ft.?
I believe that industry has not woken up to the full implications of this provision and that the Board of Trade will find itself inundated with applications from genuine firms for genuine expansion. But why make industry go to all this trouble for ordinary reorganisation and expansion? We on this side of the House contend that the control of offices and house building, the creeping control of prices, and this further control of industry are only symptomatic of the overall fact that the Government are returning more and more to controls for controls' sake without any resultant benefit. It is for these reasons that we move the Prayer and hope that the Government will withdraw this Order.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: After listening to that short oration from the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery), one can readily understand what happened during the 13 years of Tory Government. The hon. Gentleman's remarks amply illustrate that Government's complete failure to appreciate that, in a small and compact community like ours, there must be some measure of planning. When the hon. Gentleman implies that we must allow a free-

for-all—[HoN. MEMBERS: "He said nothing of the kind."]Yes, this is what he said, and——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss planning in general. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the Order.

Mr. Bagier: I direct my remarks at once to the question of industrial development certificates, Mr. Speaker, which is of great importance to my area. I represent a constituency in Sunderland, in the north-east of England, where the present rate of unemployment is 3.6 per cent., more than twice the national average, and where it has been extremely high in the past. In the 10 years leading up to 1964, three-quarters of all new jobs created were in and around the conurbations of Birmingham and London. This very fact underlines the failure of the previous Government to realise that, if we are to get the best potential out of the work force available, either we have to take work to the workers or there will be migration from such areas as mine down to the Midlands and the South.
Such enforced migration cannot be right and the Government are emphasising that, to get the best out of our work force, we must bring a measure of discipline into the movements of industry.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Order, and deal with the question whether the area for which a certificate is not needed should be reduced from 5,000 to 1,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Bagier: As regards the provision of new jobs, whether the area be 5,000 sq. ft. or 1,000 sq. ft. it is of paramount importance to have some measure of planning. The Government are prepared to say——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take note of what the Chair says. Many hon. Members wish to speak on the Order. If he cannot speak to the Order, he must not continue.

Mr. Bagier: May I conclude in this way? I am interested in jobs in my area, and my point applies to any extensions of 5,000 or of 1,000 sq. ft. Did the hon. Member for Reading or his Government consider, while they were in power, the number of unemployed in areas such as mine?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to continue his speech.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I shall be both brief and practical about the effect of the Order. I am told that the area of this Chamber is about 3,000 sq. ft. Hitherto, about the area of the Chamber plus half as much again was free for people to use in the development of their factories or new industries without being required to obtain the permission of an official of the Board of Trade. Now, the Government are reducing it to one-third the area of the Chamber. Everyone can see at once that this is pretty small.
In the Midlands, we understand and appreciate the needs of constituencies such as that represented by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier). We realise that Birmingham and the Midlands are being asked to be, so to speak, an industrial blood donor to the more anaemic areas. Our fear is that we are being asked to do it in too great a volume for the health of industry in the prosperous areas.
What particularly concerns us in Birmingham is not big industry, because that question does not arise so much on this order, but small industry. The health of the Midlands and the kind of prosperity to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South referred, has been largely due to small men in Birmingham, the seed bed of the enterprise of the area.
I should like to sum up my argument by putting a question to the Minister of State. Within the last two months in Birmingham three motor car workers have given up their jobs. They have saved a little money and got a small factory, just about of the size that would come under this Order, in which they are repairing motor car radiators. They think, and I hope they are right, that they are on to a good thing. If they succeed, as many master men before them have done in the Birmingham area, they will want to go into something bigger than this third of the size of the Chamber of the House of Commons.
How would they be treated over an I.D.C.? These are not men who could be asked to go to Glasgow or to the constituency of the hon. Member for

Sunderland, South. If they were asked to do that, they would have to fold up. They have not the credit to do that kind of thing. chey are not men who could employ a highly-paid professional man to represent their case to the Board of Trade. These three Birmingham workers who became master men—will they be fairly treated under this Order?

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I have some knowledge of the Midlands. I am surprised to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about the little man in the City of Birmingham. My experience in Birmingham over 40 years has been that it is difficult for the little man, even before I.D.C.s, to get started in Birmingham. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I am not talking nonsense. It has become increasingly more difficult for small groups of men to start industrial enterprises.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Of course it is difficult for a man to start up a new enterprise, but it is easier to do so in Birmingham, and always has been, than in almost any other city.

Mr. Bence: I did not think I would be controversial in saying that it is difficult for a small man to raise capital and get moving on a manufacturing process in the second half of the 20th century, when large industries are pretty well entrenched. I appreciate the problem of the small man and the small factory unit wanting to increase output by enlarging its premises. It is not so simple as that.
I understand that the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) does not disagree with the principle of the certificate system, but with the size of the unit permitted. Hon. Members opposite are not objecting to the principle, but the size. But it is always possible, even at that figure, for a firm to put up premises under that size in several units. This has been done. The hon. Member for Reading said that this was having little effect in the rest of the country. That is not so. We have had a report this week from the chairman of the industrial council for Scotland that the inquiries and the expansion of newer industries in Scotland is going on at a rapid pace.

Mr. Peter Emery: I have no wish to cast doubt on what the hon. Member is presenting to the House, but is he telling us that these inquiries are inquiries of under 5,000 square feet? The inquiries referred to in Scotland are, on the whole, all for expansions above that size. These are very small units. It is not that which we want to see, but a bigger movement to other areas. It is so as not to limit the normal ordinary expansions of industry in these smaller areas that we have moved this motion.

Mr. Bence: The point is that if the Order was negatived and we went back to the 5,000 square feet, the inducement to move would be that much less. The inducement is greater if one reduces the floor space for which an I.D.C. has to be sought.
I support the principle of giving considerable inducements to get manufacturers out of the centre of Birmingham, London or other conurbations into areas where development is needed. It is highly desirable if ground space in the centre of a conurbation can be released by inducing a small manufacturer to move out from the dense city area into a development district where he can build a factory as big as the one he is giving up or an even bigger one and increase his production. It is better to give him an inducement to do that than to give him freedom to expand his existing factory in the city, even by 1,000 sq. ft. Land in such areas is scarce and we need it badly. It is desirable to give an inducement to move out even if all the man wants to do is to increase his existing floor space. It is much better that this should be done outside the "coffin" between Birmingham and London. Such a man should be encouraged to go, for instance, to Scotland and build a larger factory there, whether it is 5,000 or 1,000 sq. ft. larger.
When an inducement is given to move out from an old factory, which is often functionally very backward, those running the business can frequently obtain a new factory tailor-made to their production. They can put in new machinery and equipment, and all the latest technological devices for production. It is in the interests of the workers and the country that the State should induce people to move from their old premises

in the cities and not to add to those old premises and swallow up more land in the congested areas. I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should ask for the Order to be negatived.

11.17 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I have listened with some surprise to the speeches from the Government benches. There is no question of the Opposition being against location of industry policy or against a policy of I.D.C.s in principle. On the contrary, as I remember very well—I mention this only in passing, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not pursue it—the very first Measure that we introduced in the 1959 Parliament, exactly six years ago, was a major Bill on the whole subject of location of industry, emphasising the importance—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has gone far enough on that subject. He must come to the Order itself.

Sir E. Boyle: I promise that I will not develop that further, Mr. Speaker.
What we are discussing tonight is whether uncontrolled I.D.C.s should be reduced from 5,000 to 1,000 sq. ft. In reply to an hon. Gentleman opposite, it is true that between 1951 and 1964 the proportion of the national income devoted to new capital issues doubled from 6½ to 13 per cent., and during those years we had a number of bursts in industrial investment. This was always associated with a large number of factory extensions, not least in the Midlands. Whatever our views on specific controls are, surely it must be agreed that there is a level of detailed specific control which is bound to result in a lower rate of growth than we might otherwise achieve. In other words, it is absurd to suppose that there is no lower limit to the level of specific control that we can have without affecting growth.
One of the most ambitious target figures in the National Plan—some would say that it is too ambitious—is that we must achieve each year a 7 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment. I say without question that this Order is totally inconsistent with the Government's own objective in the National Plan of an extra 7 per cent. a year in manufacturing investment. They will not get it with the very detailed, miniscule, specific controls


proposed in the Order. As one who does not take an absolutist view on specific controls or economic measures generally, I regard this as one of the most foolish Orders to have been introduced by the Government.
I cannot believe that the growth points in the regions or the level of growth can be in any way affected favourably by going into such detail as this. I am sure that our own figure of 5,000 sq. ft. was the right one and I hope that we have the maximum possible support against the Order.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: The Minister of State will be surprised, in view of the conversations I have had with him recently about the refusal of an I.D.C. to a big concern in my constituency, to know that, by and large, I support this Order. I feel lack of sympathy for both the right hon. Member for Sutton, Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) on this. To those of us in Staffordshire, Birmingham is now the "great wen" of this century. We feel very harshly treated and I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that tomorrow we shall consider the West Midlands Special Review Order, which truncates Staffordshire and reduces its revenue by nearly one-third and the total result of which will be an ever-increasing problem in meeting its financial position.

11.23 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: This Order is an absurdity. No one on this side of the House objects to industrial development certificates of a figure. But does the Minister of State think that, as a result of the Order, all projects from 5,000 sq. ft. down to 1,000 sq. ft. will be refused? Or will his Department be inundated with the paper work involved in considering all those projects which up to now would have gone through without an I.D.C.? Will these be granted or refused?
If they are refused, then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has said, it will inhibit the growth of the country. If they are not to be refused, then the Order is a nonsense because it is unnecessary.
The Minister of State is a sensible man. He is one of the few hon. Members opposite for whom I have great regard both personally and for his ability. But does he realise that the Order says that no firm in the districts mentioned—two-thirds of the industrial complex of Britain—will be able to extend its premises by more than the size of one semidetached council house without getting an I.D.C.? Such a firm will not even be able to modernise its offices or perhaps use the old offices to extend into the factory without an I.D.C. The Order means that a firm will not be able to extend by an area bigger than one-third the size of this Chamber on one floor without an I.D.C., with all the detail, all the legalities and all the justifications that have to enter into it. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this again because it will inhibit the growth of those vital small firms which cannot afford to move to Newcastle and other development districts but which are perhaps the most vital growth element in the country. This Order makes it virtually impossible for them to expand.

11.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I am sorry that I have been left so little time in which to reply. In opposing the Order, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Peter Emery) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) are somewhat handicapped because, as a result of the Summer Recess, the Order has been in operation for three months. We are not now having an academic discussion. I can explain to the House how it has been working. If I had time, I could tell the House that it had been working successfully and I could state what some of its beneficial effects were. I should like at some time to engage in an academic discussion with the right hon. Member for Handsworth, who approached the matter from an academic point of view, but tonight I shall speak of practical matters and in the few moments I have left I shall begin by answering the questions of the hon. Member for Reading.
The hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Order will not work, for it is working and working successfully.

Mr. Peter Emery: In limiting extensions.

Mr. Darling: No, not in limiting extensions. There has been no limiting of extensions in the sense the hon. Gentleman was talking about. We have not inhibited the expansion of manufacturing industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Lincolnshire was not in the anticipatory note which was sent out to help local authorities. The reason is that after the anticipatory note was sent out, the regional boundaries were redrawn, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, and within the eastern area there now comes the southern part of Lincolnshire. For reasons which we discussed in Committee and which I will not go over again, we agreed that an Order of this kind would have to be introduced on the basis of Board of Trade regions and not smaller districts.
The hon. Gentleman asked about retrospective powers. At the beginning, there was a very small element of retrospection, in other words, for those projects which had received planning permission but not been finally settled, and these were very few. However, because we have been operating for three months, those cases have practically all disappeared and otherwise there has been no element of retrospection.
The hon. Gentleman was completely confused about service industries, because neither above nor below 5,000 sq. ft. have we in any case stopped the development of service industries which obviously have to be in the localities where the services are to be performed. Of course it would be foolish and a nonsense to stop garages from going where they ought to go, even if they were not to go to development districts, or laundries or any other such services, whether above or below 5,000 sq. ft. We do not intend to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many extra applications we expected, as though the operation of the Order would so flood the Board of Trade administration that we would not be able to cope with it. We have so far dealt with just over 500 applications, the vast majority of which have been approved right away. No complaints have been received so far by the Board of Trade about delays in

notifying the result of applications. From our experience so far, the procedure is being speeded up and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the operation is being undertaken quickly and successfully with a very small increase in staff and at surprisingly small cost. If the right hon. Member for Handsworth likes, I will give credit to the machinery which was set up by the previous Administration to deal with this kind of thing. It was working extremely well.
Although at this stage we cannot form conclusions about the full effects of bringing in I.D.C. control on smaller industrial projects in the overcrowded Midlands and South-East, two tentative conclusions have already clearly emerged.

Mr. John Farr: On a point of order. May I ask for your indulgence and guidance, Mr. Speaker? It appears to me that there has been totally inadequate time for discussion——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must leave that matter to the Chair.

Mr. Darling: The first and most encouraging is that speculative building in the wrong places, of the type which the hon. Gentleman was talking about, has now completely stopped. The other is that we have been able to steer, within the area of the Order, a small but very valuable proportion of the applicants to far better sites than they would otherwise have had. These have been sites where the labour situation justifies their being established. The Order is working so extremely well that I hope that the House will reject this Motion.

Mr. Peter Emery: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he answer the point about how many applications have been refused? If he argues that everything is being approved, we do not need this Order.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The debate has unfortunately been fairly——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the Motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)).

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS (EAST ANGLIA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Norwood: The subject that I raise——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Gentlemen leave the Chamber quietly? They may have an Adjournment debate themselves one night.

Mr. Norwood: The subject I raise is one which is wide and general interest, so far as it concerns the closure of certain rail ways. It is my intention to limit its application, because my main concern is, not unnaturally, with East Anglia. In raising the subject, one is aware of the general tendency to accept general economic arguments of wide persuasion, and to accept in some cases general arguments for the reduction in railway mileage, even railway services, on economic grounds, but to protest in individual constituency cases.
I dare say that this charge might be levelled, fairly or unfairly, against me. In this instance it is reasonable to make the claim that East Anglia is in a somewhat special position. It has a remarkable history in this respect. It is true that, prior to the publication of the Beeching Plan, railway closures had already taken place in our part of the country. But even if one takes the railway lines which have been closed since the Beeching Report one has a formidable list. There are the Sheringham to Melton Constable line, the line from Wivenhoe to Brightlingsea, from Dereham to Wells next the Sea, from Audley End to Bart-low, from North Walsham to Mundesley-on-Sea, Swaffham to Thetford, Witham to Maldon, and one in Hertfordshire, and the Ely to Newmarket service.
That is a list which has not gone unremarked, either in Norfolk or Suffolk. The proposals for the lines which have been closed have gone through the procedure which was laid down in a way for which it is not possible to blame the present Minister or Government. I know that one is limited in what one can ask for in these debates as far as legislation is concerned. The powers given to the Minister in the 1962 Act to withhold his

consent to proposals are limited, and my argument would be that it falls to the new Minister to interpret the word "hardship" in the Act as generously as possible. It ought to be particularly interpreted in this way if only because the Minister does not have the powers to interfere with alteration and changes in freight services. There is no doubt that this is one of the matters which has exercised the minds of people in East Anglia over the course of the last few years.
In a statement in November last the Minister made two points of fundamental substance, to which one must refer in a speech of this nature. The first point was that all major closures—which he defined as closures which were in conflict with regional planning requirements as they may later emerge—would not be proceeded with until regional planning arrangements had become clear.
My right hon. Friend went on to make a second point, which perhaps has been somewhat misunderstood in certain parts of British Railways in East Anglia. He said:
Even in those cases where I think it right to grant consent the track will be retained for the time being unless I agree otherwise.
[Laughter.] Unfortunately I can understand the reason for the laughter. It is not devoid of hypocrisy, but, nevertheless, it is a fact that one can think of one or two instances in East Anglia—and I have a suspicion that other hon. Members may be able to think of other ones—where this does not seem to have happened. According to the information that I received only a little while ago, the railways have seen fit to lift the rails at Wells station—admittedly one of the lines that has been closed—without informing the urban district council, and despite the fact that a local industrialist was at the time hoping to bring materials into the station—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."]—I am prepared to accept that interjection from hon. Gentlemen opposite, provided, of course, we understand that this is occurring under an Act for which the Government they support were substantially responsible.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dereham-Swaffham-King's Lynn line was not to be closed under the Beeching Plan?

Mr. Norwood: I said that the Dereham-Wells line had been closed. I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I was referring to Wells station. As far as I know they have not taken up the line at Swaffham station, although it is thought that one day they may do so.
What worries me about the situation is that British Railways' management show every sign of continuing this process. The lines under consideration for closure—I think the proposals are now in the hands of the Minister of Transport—are the Cambridge-St. Ives line, the local service between Ipswich and Norwich, and the Shelford-Marks Tey line, about which I understand another hon. Member wishes to make a short point in a few minutes. I hope that he will have the opportunity to do so. In addition, other lines are under consideration by the T.U.C.C., and I shall refer to those in a minute.
What is the background to this? Closure of the Ipswich-Norwich local line will certainly cause hardship to workpeople. This is a county in which low wages are widespread, car ownership is far from being universal——

Mr. Keith Stainton: Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge) rose——

Mr. Norwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, but time is short. Roads in that area are, by and large, out of date, but the major case relates to the East Suffolk line where, as a result of a somewhat remarkable experiment, it has been clearly shown that the bus service which the railways propose as an alternative to the route they wish to withdraw cannot possibly do the distance in the time. The test that was made resulted in the buses being 23 minutes late on average on British Railways' figures. There is the question of the Dereham-Lynn line. People who use Middleton Towers station, for example, will have no bus service. Early morning workers going from Swaffham to Lynn will lose their bus service. There is a continuing history of complaints over seasonal goods traffic.
The over-riding argument concerns three lines which are still being considered by the T.U.C.C.—the line from Dereham to Lynn, the line from Cambridge to Ipswich and the line from Saxmundham to Aldburgh, in addition to the line to which I have already referred,

which by any reckoning must be considered a major closure—the East Suffolk line from Ipswich to Lowestoft. In view of this understanding about major closures I shall reserve the rest of my remarks to the more general argument.
The over-riding argument is that this county of Norfolk, its adjacent county of Suffolk and the fringe counties as well, are in course of time to be expanded in a remarkable way. About 70,000 people are due to go to Ipswich and 30,000 additional people may ultimately go to Norwich.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. Is it in order to ask the hon. Member, who represents a Norfolk constituency, to confine himself to Norfolk? He is now commenting on Suffolk matters. I am one of those who represent Suffolk constituencies. I should be glad if the hon. Member would confine himself——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Roderic Bowen): That is not a point of order. The hon. Member is in order at the moment.

Mr. Norwood: I regard myself as a Member from East Anglia, and have seen fit to raise this debate. I see no reason why I should not have done so. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) preferred to use his opportunity yesterday night on something very different——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member now get on with the subject of the Adjournment debate?

Mr. Norwood: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. From the existing plans relating to East Anglia we already know that there will be a substantial extension of population and industry, and it is fair to assume, bearing in mind that this is one of the few parts of the country in which there can be economic expansion without harm either to the people resident there or to the South-East as a whole, that that economic expansion will continue, and even extend beyond the existing plans.
It is therefore reasonable to assume that in the case of these two substantial lines—the line from Dereham to Lynn and the East Suffolk line—a strong case can be made for considering this matter as against the plans which will ultimately


come before the Economic Planning Council. We have had enough closures already in East Anglia, and it is some years before we should have any more. One solution would be to ask the Regional Planning Council, with reasonable terms of reference, to consider these closures. The East Suffolk line is irreplaceable.
I say this not as a Norwich Member but as one representing an East Anglian constituency. The alternative road—the A.12—is particularly bad. The only real alternative road service will ultimately come via Norwich. Even though I am a Norwich Member and have been criticised for raising this subject as a Norwich Member, I am also an East Anglian Member, and I consider that to think of East Anglia as being confined to Norwich or Ipswich is insufficient. It is a great deal more. It is not the rural backwater that many people have chosen to consider it but an area which promises a great deal in the way of successful economic development.
It has great potential, and the closure of any further lines would only place its possibility of realising that economic potential even more in doubt. I trust that this is not the Government's intention.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The hon. Member has one fact wrong. He referred to the area as a whole, but he should be aware that a case has been put forward by the East Suffolk County Council.

Mr. Norwood: I believe that representations have been made. I am not disputing that. The area has tremendous potential. It will be a tragedy if that potential is vitiated in any way by unnecessary closures, and if it is within the power of my hon. Friend to give me any undertaking, understanding or explanation I shall be very grateful. I trust that it is not the Government's intention to close down the East Anglian railway system.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I am glad to have the accommodation of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood), so that I may speak for two or three minutes before the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate. It is noble of the hon.

Member to have launched out on this debate on the future of the railways in East Anglia. He has the buffers in Norwich—and the buffers only; the railways belong to the constituencies of other hon. Members here tonight, on this side of the House. They are my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and myself, representing Sudbury and Woodbridge. However, the hon. Member for Norwich, South, touched on at least two important points which I should like to repeat. First, on the 1962 Act, the hon. Member tried to put the whole responsibility on to the previous Conservative Administration. Would the Parliamentary Secretary please make it clear whether his Minister is prepared to introduce a revision of the 1962 Act so far as the functions of the T.U.C.C. are concerned? I warn him that I have been in correspondence with the Minister recently on this matter——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss changes in legislation on an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Stainton: Proceeding from that, there is the more general question of the statement which the Minister made to the House in November last year about major closures. When the closures of the Stour Valley line and the East Suffolk line, both of which are substantial closures, were put to him, the Minister refused to exercise the powers he had taken unto himself in his major closure statement, in order that the more general economic factors at work could be considered before the whole panoply of the T.U.C.C. procedure was set in motion. These are my two points—the workings of the 1962 Act and the Minister's statement.
It is facile, indeed spurious, for the hon. Member for Norwich, South to raise these points when his own Government are responsible for the shortcomings.

11.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) will appreciate that I am not in a position to give definitive replies on this very important question tonight. It is clear that the specific matters he has


raised—which we regard as of the utmost importance to all those in East Anglia, including those hon. Members who are here tonight—are under close investigation.
Therefore, it is difficult for me to make this reply. I suppose that the only satisfactory reply for my hon. Friend and the other hon. Members would be that all the lines in East Anglia whose passenger services are being investigated will remain open. But they will appreciate, as I know my hon. Friend does, that I cannot make such an announcement tonight. Nevertheless, I will do my best to assist my hon. Friend in the points he has raised, and other hon. Members like the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) on general points by saying something about the Government's rail closure policy in general.
The misconceptions about what we are trying to do and the important respects in which our policy differs from that of our predecessors are still very widespread. I make no apology for using this opportunity to state the fact that we are carrying out our policy of stopping all major rail closures.
We never said in the Labour Party election manifesto that we would stop all rail closures: we said we would stop major rail closures, and that is what we are doing. The definition of major rail closures depends on an appreciation of regional and national transport needs. I would emphasise that, in pursuance of this policy, my right hon. Friend has already rejected no less than 18 important closure proposals since he came to office. In addition to that are the very important lines which have been saved without going through the full statutory procedures by the early sift procedure which my right hon. Friend introduced. This denotes the difference between our policy and that of the Tory Government which preceded us.
Since my right hon. Friend took office, the British Railways Board has been required to let him know, in advance of the publication of any proposal, the nature of the closure it wants to make. Those which are obviously unacceptable on planning grounds are immediately rejected, without going through the elaborate and expensive investigation pro-

cedure. This saves time, expense and uncertainty for many people.
For proposals which go through the full procedure under the 1962 Act—the amendment of which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you have rightly pointed out, I am debarred from discussing, although I shall be delighted to discuss it on another occasion—we have introduced a vital new stage in accordance with our pledge to take regional planning fully into account. In pursuance of that, all proposals are now considered by the appropriate regional council of the area, where those planning councils exist. That means almost everywhere in the country. I shall have something further to say about East Anglia on that point in a moment. The views of the regional council are of considerable importance to us, as, indeed, are the views of all those concerned, and not least the views of hon. Members whose constituents are affected by any proposal. Their views are taken into account.
There is a third important difference in the policy which we are pursuing. Even when my right hon. Friend feels it right to consent to a closure, he has agreed with the British Railways Board that the track and formation of a closed line should not be disposed of without his specific consent. That is a provision which did not exist before but which has been introduced by my right hon. Friend because of the possibility that, with the development of regional plans, services and lines may be reopened in the future. If, despite the most rigorous examination which closure proposals go through, there are unexpected future developments in areas now served by a line which it is agreed to close, on account of its unremunerative character, we shall maintain the possibility of providing the service again in future, if necessary.
My hon. Friend and others have mentioned two specific points of dissatisfaction with the present general procedure. The first is the question of the role of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees in considering hardship under the terms of reference of the 1962 Act. The T.U.C.C. is, of course, one of the many bodies and persons who advise the Minister. Their function is to consider and to report on hardship to users which a closure might cause and to look at alternative services. We are satisfied that this


is an important job for them to do. But advice on many other aspects of a proposed closure is, of course, available to the Minister from other specialist sources. The T.U.C.C. is his special adviser on hardship problems, but he also consults other bodies and other persons. But in the last resort my right hon. Friend has, of course, the statutory duty to take the final decision. He must draw together all the strands of advice which are given to him.
As I have said, I cannot comment on the specific lines mentioned by my hon. Friend or represented here by other hon. Members, because all of them—and there are many of them in East Anglia—are in various stages of consideration after being put forward by the Railways Board. But I assure my hon. Friend that everything which he said tonight, and indeed all the representations made by hon. Members from East Anglia, will be most carefully considered by my right hon. Friend before he comes to his decision on them.
More than that I cannot say, but I can use this opportunity to give one important assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. Hon. Members will know that the Planning Council for East Anglia is about to be set up by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. We intend to refer all outstanding cases of railways closures in East Anglia—I think my hon. Friend mentioned 10 in all—to the Planning Council so that we may have the benefit of its advice before my right hon. Friend takes any decision. The Planning Council for East Anglia has not yet been established and we do not have the date of its first meeting.
It must be remembered that these are unremunerative lines. We have said that it is exceedingly important that all planning considerations should be taken into account in connection with all rail closure proposals. We mean that. We have done it in the rest of the country. We have now decided that, at whatever stage they might be at present, all rail closure proposals in East Anglia will be referred to the Planning Council when it is established. We will, therefore, await the Council's advice on planning grounds concerning the future potential, from the economic, development and other points of view, of these lines in East Anglia

before my right hon. Friend takes a decision.
I do not want any hon. Member to have the wrong impression about closure proposals. Publication of the Railways Board's intention to close a line to passenger services does not necessarily mean the closure of that line. In at least 18 cases my right hon. Friend has rejected outright the proposals which have been put to him, while in other cases the proposals have been withdrawn by the Railways Board after preliminary examination. Thus, publication of the intention to close and the procedure of investigation does not necessarily mean that the closures will take place.
The statutory procedure sets in train a full examination of the social and economic value of the line in the area which it serves. In addition, we will now have, as a result of the initiative of the present Government, the Regional Planning Councils in operation. They will contain representatives of the area and, concerning the East Anglian proposals, we will have the advantage of the Regional Planning Council's assessment of the value of the lines for the future development of the area.
I hope, therefore, that it is realised that these proposals will be considered in the widest possible way—and tonight's debate gives us an opportunity to make this point clear—and that the economic implications, the social costs and benefits and so on to the people will be taken into account by a wide representative body of opinion, including the T.U.C.C.s, the economic planning councils, the local authorities and the views of hon. Members, which are made known to my right hon. Friend. All these will be carefully assessed before any decisions are reached by my right hon. Friend on future rail closures in East Anglia.

11.58 p.m.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: The whole House as well as the public generally will be grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the clear way in which he set out the situation. I say frankly, as one of the hon. Members who has been concerned over the closure of what is known as the East Suffolk line, that the public generally usually take the view when railway closure proposals are


announced that there is no point in their trying to fight against them.
In view of what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, we must make it clear to people in this area that it is worth putting up a fight. I understand that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary attended an inquiry held by the T.U.C.C. in my part of the world and saw the great number of people, certainly 200, who wished to take part. There were two full days of inquiry, at the end of which there were still 93 people wanting to give evidence. However, since two days had been occupied in hearing evidence, it became obvious that some of it was repetitive and the T.U.C.C. rightly came to the conclusion that there was no need to hold a further day's hearing.
I once again thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for making it clear that it is for all concerned, county councils and other bodies and individuals, to put their evidence forward. They should realise that it is not only hardship considerations which the Minister takes into account when making his decision whether or not to close a line. This is not sufficiently well known and it is to be hoped that, as a result of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Norwood) initiating this debate, much publicity will be given to the facts presented by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.